Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

London Underground

Mr. Tom Brake: If he will assess the Chantrey Vellacott report into the financing costs of the public-private partnership for London Underground, a copy of which has been sent to him. [85779]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We have assessed the note published by Chantrey Vellacott, but consider the analysis within it to be flawed.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for his response, even though, having given him advance notice of my question, I had hoped for a more considered reply. I repeat the question that I asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's Question Time: is the extra cost of the Government's public-private partnership proposals for London Underground going to be £8 billion—yes or no?

Mr. Prescott: The extra investment will be approximately £7 billion, but it will not be raised entirely through borrowing or through fares, so the analysis is flawed.

Mr. Llew Smith: Given the very high commitment of public funds to private finance initiative schemes, has my right hon. Friend considered the risk that, by appraising schemes using the Treasury's discount rate of 6 per cent., a spurious impression of value for money will be created?

Mr. Prescott: In all those projects, we are required to demonstrate value for money; the House of Commons Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee have all made that absolutely clear. Our proposals, whether on Treasury assessment, bond financing or anything else, all have to be subject to that judgment. In my judgment, the proposals that we shall announce later will meet that requirement.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: If the first mayor of London is elected on a pledge to reject the Secretary of State's public-private partnership, what happens?

Mr. Prescott: We have made it absolutely clear that we shall sign the deal. I am sure that the mayor of London

wants a London Underground in which there is good investment, and our proposals will provide that. I cannot think of a Labour Member of Parliament who would not want a good underground system.

Railway Passengers

Mr. Vernon Coaker: If he will make a statement on trends in the number of people using trains. [85780]

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government welcome the marked upward trend in the number of people using trains.

Mr. Coaker: We all welcome the increase in the number of people using trains, but will my right hon. Friend do all she can to support the increased use of local trains? In particular, will she support the work of Nottinghamshire county council and Nottingham city council on the Greater Nottingham area rail development strategy, which is designed to get more local people to use local trains, rather than clogging up the city's roads as they go in and out of town?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I applaud him for raising the issue. In his area, the Robin Hood line has been greatly welcomed, but we must see that line as the beginning of the story, not the end. The use of local rail links fits in well with the Government's integrated transport strategy, so I commend the Greater Nottingham rail development strategy and look forward to its implementation.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I draw the Minister's attention to the figures published today by the rail franchising director on the punctuality and reliability of services. It is one thing to have increasing numbers of passengers, but those figures show that reliability and punctuality are declining among many rail providers. Is that the future of public transport and of trains under the Labour Government?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister during the rail summit: as the number of people travelling by train increases, it is important that overcrowding does not become a factor that inhibits the quality of service to passengers. When the rail franchising director considers the renegotiation of franchises that my right hon. Friend announced at the summit, such factors must be taken into account. Ultimately, it is the performance and efficiency of the rail network and the quality of the experience for passengers that are important and must be taken into account.

Mr. Geraint Davies: May I take this opportunity to welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position? I am sure that she will do extraordinarily well. Does she agree that the increases in train patronage, constraints on road building and the escalator in taxation of polluting fuels provide a virtuous environment for private sector investment in rail infrastructure, rolling stock and track? Will she use her position to put pressure


on the industry to put greater investment into capacity, so that people can make greater use of trains in an environmentally sustainable way?

Mrs. Liddell: Given such a gracious welcome to my position, it would be churlish of me not to agree with my hon. Friend. However, I do agree with him that it is important to improve the quality of the experience of those using public transport, so that public transport becomes a viable alternative that is both attractive and efficient. Road users and users of public transport want services to be improved, because if we ease congestion and improve public transport, everyone gains.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join in congratulating the right hon. Lady on her appointment—although some of her colleagues could be forgiven for thinking, "No Labour Transport Ministers for 18 years and then three come along at once."
May I admonish the right hon. Lady for having been a little coy about the dramatic 25 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using the railways since privatisation? After two years in power, and no new money, no decisions taken and no legislation, exactly what role have the Government played in that dramatic increase in the number of rail passengers? Is it not about time that the Government started taking decisions that will enable Railtrack to allocate £27 billion to investment and renewals, instead of carping against Railtrack and undermining its share price and its ability to invest?

Mrs. Liddell: May I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities at the Dispatch Box? It is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition has split the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and that two shadow Secretaries of State are required to match up to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman talked about three Transport Ministers arriving at once. The Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), and I attended the same school, so that is perhaps a measure of the effectiveness of our education.
Since this Government were elected, the focus on public transport has been second to none, particularly in relation to rail transport. The fragmented system that we inherited, including some quite bizarre contracts that were signed when the Conservative party was in government, has left us with the challenge of ensuring that our rail transport system is the best in the world within 10 years. At the end of the day, the passengers will decide whether to use the railways. As a new member of the Department, conscious of the achievements that have been made, I commend its work to the House.

Concessionary Travel

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When he expects to bring forward legislation on concessionary travel for the elderly and the retired. [85781]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Legislation to fulfil our commitment to minimum half-fare travel on buses for pensioners will be introduced

as soon as parliamentary time permits. Individual local authorities are free to adopt the proposed minimum standard in advance of legislation.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Deputy Prime Minister appreciate that, while Back Benchers and our constituents understand that the Labour Government cannot achieve everything at once—it is a question of priorities and dealing with legislative bottlenecks—there is a growing impatience among some, particularly in the conurbations where boroughs such as mine interface with London boroughs, who believe that the measure should be implemented as quickly as possible? I urge my right hon. Friend to persuade business managers to provide early legislative time so that we may have the scheme up and running long before the next general election.

Mr. Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's comments about the impatience in this area. We are committed to introducing the half-fare system for pensioners, which we think is right. However, there is nothing to stop any authority introducing that scheme now. I understand that the authority of Thurrock has introduced a half-rate scheme that it subjects to means testing. The difference with our scheme is that 17,000, rather than 7,000, pensioners in Thurrock would qualify for it. Some 3 million pensioners overall will benefit from the scheme.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that approximately half of local authorities are currently unable to provide the concessionary fare schemes of which the Government are in favour—partly because of the substantial costs that they would entail—can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the statutory scheme that he proposes to introduce will involve no additional cost whatsoever for any local authority in this country and that, therefore, no local authority will be required to increase council tax to pay for the right hon. Gentleman's pledge?

Mr. Prescott: It is just not true to say that a substantial number of local authorities do not pay for some form of concessionary fares—in fact, only 10 do not and they are all Conservative or Independent councils. The total scheme will cost an extra £25 million nationally, which the Government are quite prepared to meet.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that national concessionary travel is extremely good news for pensioners. Is there similar good news for those pensioners who are former employees of the National Bus Company and whose pension fund was raided by the previous Tory Government to the tune of millions of pounds?

Mr. Prescott: The House is well aware of the ability that my hon. Friend has demonstrated in pursuing the injustice that arose out of the privatisation of the National Bus Company, whereby many thousands of pensioners were denied hundreds of millions of pounds in pension rights. We have now concluded an agreement, and I can confirm that we have reached a settlement with the pension fund trustees which is worth £356 million to 50,000 pensioners, and the trustees will be recommending that offer to the court. That corrects an injustice that arose from the privatisation.

Regional Airports

Mr. John M. Taylor: If he will make a statement on the future of regional airports. [85782]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): We shall encourage the growth of regional airports to maximise the contribution that they make to local and regional economies, always consistent with sustainable development principles.

Mr. Taylor: Would the Minister welcome and encourage the involvement of Birmingham airport, the National Exhibition Centre, Virgin and Railtrack in the development of an efficient transit system between the airport, the railway station and the exhibition centre, with the private sector in the lead? Will she pay a visit to Birmingham airport to find out what transport needs it has?

Ms Jackson: I should be delighted to make another visit to Birmingham. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we strongly support the development of a public transport interchange, including a new people mover system. We have forwarded an application to the European Commission for trans-European network funding for phase 1 of the interchange scheme, and we expect to receive a reply in the next few months.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend hold urgent talks with the companies that are increasingly using the slots of south-east airports which enable the regional airports to use their services? They are losing their slots because they are being handed over to transatlantic flights. Will she look hard at what is happening to regional airports, because if they lose their access to the south-east, they will be badly damaged, and passengers will be very upset?

Ms Jackson: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have been concentrating on that issue for some considerable time. We have been at the forefront in urging the European Commission, when it eventually submits its proposals for slot allocation, to make its main consideration our arguments about protecting the regions.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the Minister will not mind if I mention Manchester international airport, which is also a regional airport. Does she accept that it is essential not only to have integrated public transport to ensure that the second runway at Manchester is fully used—as I believe it will be—but that the road network feeding Manchester airport, particularly from the east, north-east and south-east, is completed if the area around the airport is not to be submerged under an unacceptable volume of commercial and domestic traffic?

Ms Jackson: I am of course delighted to highlight the success of Manchester airport, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to congratulate the Government on their policy for our regional airports. We have ensured the relaxation of borrowing limits for those airports that have demonstrated that they are eminently capable of balancing their books, and of course Manchester is one of those airports. We have consistently made it clear that surface

access to all airports is central to their being able to operate within our requirements for sustainable development.

Shona McIsaac: It is nice to hear my hon. Friend's warm words about Manchester airport because it has just purchased an 82 per cent. share in Humberside airport. Will she congratulate Manchester airport, particularly on its announcement of a £6 million investment in Humberside? Also, will she guarantee that regional airports will have the necessary commercial freedom to develop their capacity?

Ms Jackson: I have already sent my congratulations to Manchester airport, and I am delighted to send them also to Humberside. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my delight in the practical application of the Government's foresight in making possible a relaxation of borrowing controls for our airports. It is another indication of the Government's long-term aim of ensuring that regional airports work together in the interests not only of their own regions, but of the entire United Kingdom.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What progress has been made in investigating whether a public service obligation can be imposed for the provision of regional air services, particularly those between London Heathrow and Inverness?

Ms Jackson: It is my understanding that there were fruitful discussions with representatives from Inverness. The hon. Gentleman raises an issue on which I have already touched—the importance that we attach to access from the regions to important airports in the south-east, which is why we have consistently argued to the Commission that when it eventually presents its revised proposals for slot allocation, regional factors should be at the forefront of its consideration.

Radioactive Waste Disposal

Dr. Ian Gibson: What plans he has for research on the disposal of radioactive waste. [85783]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Department's plans for environmental research are contained in the environmental protection group research newsletter 1999–2000, a copy of which is available in the Library. These include two projects specifically on the disposal of radioactive waste—an assessment of the long-term safety concerns that determine confidence in waste management options, and the continuation of the high-level waste and spent fuel disposal research strategy project.

Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with the recent national consensus conference on radioactive waste management that was held in London, which reached the conclusion that there should be no further development of the nuclear industry until we learn how to deal adequately with the waste problem?

Mr. Meacher: We certainly agree that the disposal of radioactive waste—an issue that has defeated previous Governments on a number of well-known occasions—is


a matter that needs to be resolved. For that reason, we will publish our response soon to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. We agree that there should be wide-ranging consultations before final conclusions are reached as to whether radioactive waste should be stored above ground or in deep underground repositories. Until that matter is resolved, there will continue to be serious problems for the industry.

Beacon Council Scheme

Mr. Martin Salter: If he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the beacon council scheme. [85784]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We invited councils to apply for beacon status with the publication last month of the beacon council scheme application brochure. The deadline for applications is 31 July, and we anticipate announcing the first beacon councils in November.

Mr. Salter: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware of the enthusiasm of many forward-looking councils for the beacon council scheme?

Mr. Stephen Pound: Not Reading!

Mr. Salter: Well done! Indeed, Reading council is applying for beacon council status in two service areas. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is high time that forward-looking councils such as Reading, which are virtually Tory-free zones, had an opportunity to share their best practice with the rest of local government, and their electoral tactics with other parts of the Labour party?

Ms Armstrong: I am delighted to hear of the enthusiasm in Reading. In response to the consultation document, only two councils—Liberal Ribble Valley and Conservative Wandsworth—opposed the beacon council scheme. The remaining 144 respondents fully supported it. Today I am arranging for the full responses to be placed in the House of Commons Library.
Tory Wandsworth described the scheme as
irrationally tied in to the Government's modernisation and Best Value initiatives".
By contrast, the Confederation of British Industry described it as
a mechanism by which councils can improve the services they provide and learn new ideas on how to tackle problems their communities face.
We know that Conservatives are not interested in tackling problems in new and innovative ways, but I welcome any council that wants to do so. As my hon. Friend said, the scheme is primarily intended to spread good practice. I hope that all local councils will look at how they can learn from others and improve their service to their citizens.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister agree that, given Labour's appalling record in local government of waste, mismanagement, incompetence and downright corruption, the Government are in no position to lecture any local authority on standards of quality in local government? Does not she have to agree that the

reason the electorate up and down the country so decisively rejected Labour in the local elections recently, as they did in the European elections this week, is absolutely clear? Labour is going down to rejection by the electorate at the next general election.

Ms Armstrong: I think that the hon. Gentleman has some way to go and a bit to learn yet. I see that he is up for sale; perhaps he can get a price that will mean that the Conservative party has a future. In the meantime, local government recognises its responsibility and, although the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, Labour local government is considered by independent bodies such as the Audit Commission to be improving year on year. That is our target and that is what we will achieve. We will make sure that local councils are able to face the real challenges of the 21st century, and it is a pity that he is not with us on that.

Holyhead-Crewe-Euston Rail Route

Mr. Barry Jones: What discussions he has had on the prospects for the Holyhead-Crewe-Euston rail route; and if he will make a statement. [85785]

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising Director has had regular discussions about improving direct services on the Holyhead-Crewe-Euston route with Railtrack, Virgin West Coast, which is the current service provider, and First North Western, which has made a commitment to provide services from 2000 in addition to the services currently being provided by Virgin.

Mr. Jones: For a generation, that service has been substandard, and quite intolerably so. What new investment, rolling stock and timetables will there be, to the benefit of north Wales users who look to the service to help to attract new industry to the area? Today, my constituency celebrates an £800 million defence contract, which will bring new, high-quality work to the area, and my Raytheon aerospace workers are grateful, but does my right hon. Friend accept that we could attract many more such projects if we had a first-class rail service?

Mrs. Liddell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his imminent elevation to the Privy Council, which is fair recognition of his service to the House and to his constituents. The point that he raised about the Holyhead to Euston route is valid. There has been fragmentation on the route over the past 18 years, but, because of the development of the west coast main line and the services that are to be provided by Virgin West Coast and the other developers, there will be through services which will benefit the economic development of the area.
My hon. Friend's point about the £800 million investment in his area is well taken because, as my colleagues in the Welsh Office have repeatedly said, transport infrastructure in and out of Wales and from north to south Wales is critical. I commend him for raising this matter.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister redouble her efforts? I ask that because a group of Japanese potential investors who recently came to north


Wales by train arrived two hours late and decided, "That's enough; we are not going to invest in north Wales." Travelling on an early train from north Wales is like playing Russian roulette—the service is appalling.

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman's point is valid. If we are to improve our economic performance, we must make sure that our transport infrastructure is second to none. The developments on the west coast main line and the spur developments coming off it are critical and, because of that, I have invited Railtrack and the Association of Train Operating Companies to see me in the next few weeks. I want to talk about issues such as that which he has raised; it is vital to all of us and to the economic performance of our country.

Regional Assemblies

Mr. Jim Cousins: If it is the policy of the Government to plan for directly elected regional assemblies in England. [85786]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): We remain committed to directly elected regional government in England where there is demand for it. Meanwhile, the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom continue to be properly covered by the present organisation of the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Cousins: Is it not plain that once the people of regions such as the north-east, Yorkshire, the north-west and the south-west see assemblies in Wales, Scotland and, in due course, London discussing their needs and budgets with central Government, the demand for directly elected assemblies in their own regions will be very strong? It is a time for leadership; there must be leadership, and the Government must indicate clearly what plans and what sort of timetable they are considering, so that we can ask our people to support the proposals in a referendum.

Mr. Caborn: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the Government's position. We have set up regional development agencies, which are there to address the economic deficit that, unfortunately, exists in our English regions. We are now establishing regional chambers, which, in the main, will be in the public sector. The legislation governing regional development agencies will mean that they must cross-check with the regional chambers, and that proper consultation must take place.
We believe that we are managing the changes involved in devolution very effectively. I hope that the RDAs and the regional chambers will gain the confidence of people in the regions, and that when those people are given an opportunity to say whether they want further devolution, they will say that they do.

Mr. Peter Brooke: How far has the Government's enthusiasm for regional assemblies been diluted by the disastrous turnout in the European elections?

Mr. Caborn: Not at all.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Not only is this positively my last appearance, but it must be clear to the House that this afternoon I am on borrowed time.
I am glad to take the opportunity to wish the Minister for Transport well in her new post. I also thank the Secretary of State for his generous remarks to me during the last Environment questions, and for the impeccable way in which, throughout the past year, he has observed the parliamentary procedures and courtesies. I wish him interesting encounters with my successor, who will respond to today's statement on London Transport.
Do the Government intend a system of proportional representation to be used to elect regional assemblies? Given that, if a first-past-the-post system had been used in the recent European elections, the Labour party's performance would have been even more disastrous than it was, do not the Government face a dilemma? Would they not be better advised to abandon their ill-conceived notion of imposing on the electorate yet another reason for Labour voters not to turn out?

Mr. Caborn: We have no reason to go back on the decisions that were made, which the British electorate supported at the 1997 general election. We will come through. We are not a "here today, gone tomorrow" party, moving around the political spectrum as some Opposition Members do. We do not know what their policies are, because they alter them from day to day, let alone from week to week. We will manage the change—a change that we believe to be in the country's interests, because it addresses both the economic and the democratic deficits.
I wish the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) well. I think, however, that not a new face but a very old one will be taking over from her.

Genetic Modification

Mr. Norman Baker: What steps he is taking to ensure environmental considerations identified by his Department are recognised within the ministerial group on bio-technology and genetic modification. [85787]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Environmental considerations are at the forefront of all our decisions on genetically modified organisms. They are fully taken into account by the ministerial group on biotechnology and genetic modification.

Mr. Baker: I hear what the Minister says, but is he aware of the fear that the new committee is being used not to strengthen the protection of the environment, but to shut down opposition from his Department in the face of the fanatically pro-GM lobby? Perhaps the isolation distance that has been eradicated has led to some cross-contamination from some of his rather less environmentally friendly colleagues.
If the Minister is serious about the issue, which I believe him to be, will he arrange for the publication in full of the minutes of the sinister biotechnology presentation group, along with its remit? Does he accept that, until that is done, the Government have no credibility in this regard?

Mr. Meacher: We have made it very clear that we wish to be wholly transparent in the manner in which we deal with the issue. We realise that public opinion is seriously concerned about it—very seriously concerned—


and, indeed, highly polarised. The Government are trying to advance the prospects of the technology, which is certainly important and has potential consumer benefits, in a manner that secures that any risk with regard to the human food chain or the environment is fully taken into account.
The biotechnology and genetic modification Cabinet sub-committee looks at all the evidence. We have openly published almost all the evidence that has been before us. We know that the only way to restore public confidence is by being completely open.

Joan Ruddock: Further to that reply, my right hon. Friend will be aware of reports of the indirect effects of genetically modified crops on organisms such as lacewings and the larvae of monarch butterflies. Has the committee received, or will it receive, such reports? Have the Government commissioned their own laboratory research into such indirect effects?

Mr. Meacher: My Department's committee, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, certainly watches very carefully international research on the issue, particularly with regard to lacewings and the monarch butterfly. Recently, the chairman of ACRE made it clear that it is looking at the full implications, particularly for the latter. However, it was a laboratory study and we need to take account of UK environmental conditions. In addition, the BT—bacillus thuringiensis—maize, the plant concerned in the experiment, is not released in the UK either commercially or experimentally; but we are looking at what are serious scientific results which may have a major effect for the future.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What measures has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that the resulting products of farm-scale trials of GM foods do not contaminate the environment?

Mr. Meacher: That is the purpose of the farm-scale evaluations. Over several years, there have been several hundred—I think 600 to 700—small trial plantings of GM crops in this country, but to examine the impact on the environment generally, it is necessary to advance those to farm scale. That is why, this year, we have seven to nine fields which will be planted with oilseed rape and maize and, next year, 20 to 25. We want to get a nationally representative sample, precisely so that we will be able to see the impact that GM crops, as compared with non-GM crops, have on the environment, on invertebrates, on field margins, on insects and on bird populations. Again, we will do that completely openly with independent research contractors and an independent scientific review committee. We will make clear the evidence wholly and transparently before we reach a conclusion.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: How many representations he has received during the last 12 months (a) in favour of and (b) against the development of genetically modified crops. [85788]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): During the past 12 months, about 4,000 letters have been received. Almost all expressed concerns on various aspects of genetically modified crops.

Mr. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his sober and rational response to the article by Prince Charles

on 2 June containing his 10 questions. Those are the very questions that the general public want answered. Why are GM foods necessary? In view of the enormous public concern and hostility to these technologies, do we really need GM foods?

Mr. Meacher: The honest answer is that we do not need GM foods, but the technology has some potential benefits. It enables products to have a longer shelf life and to be able to withstand saline or dry conditions in developing countries. There may well be additional benefits that are not yet known. However, we need to be extremely careful in developing the technology to ensure that there is no damage to the food chain or the environment. That is why I have made it clear that we will not allow commercial planting of GM crops until the Government have completed the farm-scale evaluations and have sufficient evidence to reach an authoritative judgment about the impact on the environment.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Given the level of alarm that the Minister has expressed, given the fact that people are starving in the world not because of a shortage of food but because of distribution problems, and given the environmental risks that we must inevitably be taking, does the Minister agree that there is no rush to develop these foods?

Mr. Meacher: Indeed, I have made it clear that we will not be rushed into an early decision. I repeat that it would be wrong in my view and that of the Government to turn our back on this technology. It has mainly producer benefits at present but it could have some significant consumer benefits in the long run. However, we should not be stampeded by industrial or commercial interests to take a decision in favour of this technology until we know—and can produce the evidence for everyone to look at—that it is wholly safe.

Mr. Huw Edwards: My right hon. Friend will have received representations from Monmouthshire about applications to grow genetically modified crops in the area. One of the major concerns has been expressed by organic farmers. What assurance can the Minister give me that there will be no cross-contamination for organic producers?

Mr. Meacher: That is an important issue to which the Government are giving great attention. There have been discussions with organic farmer representatives at official level in my Department and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are, quite rightly, concerned that their organic products should not be cross-contaminated. The Government wish to protect their interests and to see an increase in organic products in this country because consumer demand is considerably in excess of domestic supply, with consequential balance of payments problems.
The issue is largely one of isolation distances, about which there has been considerable public controversy. Indeed, in regard to the Lushill farm, the Soil Association recently changed its view about the adequacy of isolation distances for oilseed rape, from 200 m to six miles. Thus there needs to be a good deal of further discussion between representatives of GM crop growers and organic farmers in order to try to reach an acceptable accommodation that protects the interests of both.

Lead Shot

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What representations he has received regarding his proposed regulations on the use of lead shot. [85789]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): As of 27 May 1999 my Department has received a total of approximately 400 representations on the proposed regulations on the use of lead shot. My officials are currently analysing the responses.

Mr. Swayne: The Minister will be aware of the diminution of liberty that has arisen over recent years as a consequence of the raft of officials who now have access to our homes. Will he play his part in turning that tide by amending the regulations so that they are enforceable only by properly authorised police officers? Will he also consider removing from the species list the common snipe and the golden plover, and consider whether there are sites of special scientific interest that are not entirely appropriate for the regulations and remove them from the sites list?

Mr. Meale: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I remind him that, for a long time, the Prime Minister has led a better regulation committee. I can confirm that it is the Government's intention that the main enforcing authority for such regulations would be the police. Along with the outcome of the consultations, all the hon. Gentleman's representations, which have been made not only today but previously in writing, will be considered in due course.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Minister met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on the matter? If so, what was the outcome?

Mr. Meale: I am currently not at liberty to inform my hon. Friend of the outcome, but I give a commitment to reply to him in writing.

Vacant Dwellings

Sir Michael Spicer: If he will list the number of vacant dwellings in (a) the public and (b) the private sector. [85790]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Latest estimates, at 1 April 1998, are that there were 100,700 vacant dwellings in the public sector, and 652,500 in the private sector.

Sir Michael Spicer: Why cannot more be done to use existing housing stock, rather than building excessively on green-field land?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has for some time sought to keep a close eye on the matter. As he will have heard, the majority of vacant properties are in the private sector. Most of those properties are vacant for only a short time, while people are seeking to move. However, we are very carefully examining the matter of void properties, as we realise that it is a problem.
In recent years, however, before the Government were elected, the absolute neglect of council housing was the real problem in public sector housing. The consequence of that neglect has, of course, been a decline in the standard of council housing. The English house condition survey, for the first time since it began, identified a decline in the condition of council housing—which was the result of no investment in, or repairs to, council housing. The Government are tackling that problem, and have provided almost £5 billion to do so. We are determined to get a decent home for everyone.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that Burnley has one the highest percentages of unoccupied private sector properties in the whole of England, and that that is one of the reasons why it has a residual debt problem in housing stock transfers. Is it not crucial that that problem be solved, so that a ballot can be held, and Burnley borough council will be able to tackle the private sector housing problem—which is largely the result of the previous Government's actions?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend tells a story that the previous Administration always refused even to consider, just as they refused to admit the consequences of their actions. The Government are determined that, in every area, we shall be able to ensure a proper housing supply to meet local people's demands and needs. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are actively examining the problem of overhanging debt in transfers, and that we are determined to find a way forward. I only wish that that work could have started much earlier.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: I thank the Minister for giving those figures, which she was woefully unable to give recently in Committee. Does she agree with the recent Shelter report, entitled "No excuse not to build", which says that there are very large regional imbalances in housing vacancy rates and concludes that
current housing and planning policies are failing to provide sufficient good quality affordable homes to meet need"?
If she agrees with it, what will she do about it?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman needs to consult the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who was making a very different argument. There is—although it was never admitted before the general election—a highly variable pattern of housing across the United Kingdom. In several parts of the country, there was no attempt to increase economic activity; consequently, there were simply too many houses. The Government are taking action not only on increasing regional economic activity, but on examining the real problem of low housing demand in some parts of the country.
I only wish that that work had begun earlier. We are determined to ensure that houses are used effectively and efficiently, but we must also ensure that each region has the right accommodation to meet the needs of the people who live there so that everyone in the community has a secure, stable home.

New Deal (Communities)

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What progress has been made to date in the implementation of the new deal for communities. [85791]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Our new deal for communities has given 17 pathfinder partnerships in some of our most deprived neighbourhoods the opportunity to tackle the deep-rooted problems of social exclusion that were left us by the previous Administration. We shall continue to support those community-based partnerships as they develop plans to deliver lasting and sustainable change.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I can confirm the good progress of the pathfinder scheme in the Woodlands estate in West Ham, having discussed the matter with constituents such as Liz Ayres. The London borough of Newham, which is a key partner, is very pleased with the initiative so far. When is the programme likely to be rolled out to other communities?

Mr. Caborn: Of the 17 partnerships, 10 went straight to the first phase of the new deal for communities. They are developing long-term strategies. The other seven were asked to go back and do further work. I hope that we shall be able to make some announcements early next week. From what I have seen, they are all making positive progress. We are considering rolling out a further programme, possibly later this year.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister looked at councils such as Weymouth, which was Labour-controlled until the party lost control at the local elections? The Government have consistently denied funds to areas such as Weymouth, although we have social problems as well, whereas the inner cities get additional central Government funds even though they do not spend up to their standard spending assessment. Surely that is unfair and very stupid, particularly as Labour is losing seats in all the local councils in the south-west and would have lost every seat in the south-west if there had been a general election last Thursday.

Mr. Caborn: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman distracted attention from the main point of his question about Weymouth, to which he did not do justice. We are dealing with sustainable regeneration by looking at all the pots of money that are available, including the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget, which was 20 per cent. top-sliced to ensure that it could be targeted on areas outside the inner cities such as the coalfield communities, rural communities and some coastal towns which are suffering genuine deprivation.
The previous Administration left that situation for us to tackle. We are tackling it systematically—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman like me to answer the question? Each region is introducing strategies to deal with regeneration sustainably.

Railway Station Parking

Mr. David Lock: If he will take steps to encourage the provision of free car parking at railway stations. [85793]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Charges for car parking at railway stations are a matter for Railtrack and the train operating companies. However, we encourage Railtrack and the train operating companies to provide facilities at their stations to allow safe and easy access for all passengers.

Mr. Lock: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that car parking charges imposed by train operating companies have an effect on the residents of adjoining streets? Those charges can generate considerable revenue, which the train operating companies should invest in facilities for travellers and those affected by their policies rather than simply treating travellers as a captive audience for generating money to go straight on to their bottom line.

Ms Jackson: Car parking standards and charges are not covered in current franchise agreements but we are clear that good interchange has a vital role to play in improving public transport. Our integrated transport White Paper made clear its importance for promoting integrated transport and minimising disruption and inconvenience to users. In preparing their transport plans, local authorities undertake an interchange audit to assess such facilities.

Road Noise

Mr. Andrew Hunter: If he will make a statement on his policy for reducing noise from motorways and other trunk roads. [85794]

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell): We have established a policy of using quieter surfaces where appropriate in resurfacing trunk roads. We have set up an annual budget of £5 million to deal with some of the most serious cases of noise from existing roads. Sift criteria to identify cases meriting further study were announced on 22 March.

Mr. Hunter: Will the Minister confirm that when the M3 in the vicinity of Basingstoke requires resurfacing the most effective noise-reducing surface will be used, and that that stretch of road also qualifies for spending under the Government's £5 million a year ring-fenced budget for noise reduction?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman has raised this issue on many occasions over a number of years, and I commend him for that. As he will know, a study is being undertaken into noise along the M3. I expect the results of that study probably before the end of July, which will allow me to make a decision on what further action may be necessary. The sift criteria have been eased so that it is more likely that more noise-limiting measures can be introduced, but it is really a matter for technical evaluation.

Mr. David Drew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the interest that she has taken in this matter,


especially in relation to the area of Upton St. Leonards on the M5 in my constituency, where there is a particular problem. Will she consider publishing the sift analysis so that we know exactly what the problems are and can consider the pecking order in which they should be dealt with?

Mrs. Liddell: The announcement on Monday 22 March 1999 set out many of the criteria on noise levels immediately adjacent to the road. The 1998 level is an average 80 decibels. We need an idea of the scale of the problems throughout the country so that we can prioritise how to spend the ring-fenced money to ensure that people's lives are made easier by reducing the worst road noise and its effects on local communities.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Minister aware that major road improvements lead to an increase in traffic which often spills over into other local roads? Last week I was at a well-attended meeting in the village of Compton in my constituency. People told me about the problems that had been caused by the vast increase in the volume of traffic resulting from the building of the connection with the M3 up the road. Is she aware that noise reduction measures in such villages can make a major improvement in people's lives? Given the extra £10 billion in taxation being extracted by the Government from the British motorist, cannot she increase the size of the fund for noise reduction measures?

Mrs. Liddell: Considering that the amount available for noise reduction measures is much more than was made available by the previous Government, and that the criteria have been changed to ensure that more roads are eligible for such assistance, that comment is rather rich coming from the hon. Gentleman. I do not underestimate the inconvenience caused by noise on roads. Local authority roads are not a matter for me directly, but the Government are aware of the difficulties that people can

experience, and indeed of the measures that can be taken to mitigate noise. That is why we have ring-fenced the money and taken an especial interest in the matter.

National Land Use Database

Mr. Harold Best: If he will report on progress on the creation of a national land use database, with particular reference to Yorkshire and Humberside. [85795]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Provisional results from the first phase of the national land use database were published on 20 May. They show an estimated 33,000 hectares of previously developed vacant and derelict land in England in 1998, of which about 6,500 hectares was in Yorkshire and Humberside. More detailed results are available in a Government Statistical Service information bulletin, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. My Department will work with local authorities and others to develop a system to keep the information up to date and to expand the scope of the database to encompass all land uses.

Mr. Best: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authorities should be advised about the need to ensure that the land bank is made available as rapidly as possible, rather than using green-field sites?

Mr. Caborn: That is a decision for the local authorities, although there is nothing constraining them. At least when this Government came to power we got the basic statistics right and found out how much brown-field land was available for building—that is what the database is all about. Unfortunately, it was a somewhat fatuous debate when the Conservatives were in power, because they did not have that basic information to hand for the local authorities.

London Underground

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about London Underground.
London Underground is part of the lifeblood of London, and indeed the whole country, carrying 850 million passengers each year. For too many years, however, under different Governments and even under the Greater London council, investment in the underground has been inadequate to secure a modern, reliable underground system. As I explained to the House last year, we inherited an investment backlog of £1.2 billion. We intend to modernise the underground through a £7 billion public-private partnership which will bring long-term stability to the investment programme.
Train and station services will continue to be operated by a publicly owned, publicly accountable London Underground. However, in order to raise long-term finance, we will invite private companies to take responsibility for upgrading the infrastructure, including the track, tunnels, signals, escalators and trains. That would, however, be for a limited period only, after which the upgraded assets would return to the public sector.
That means that for the first time in living memory London Transport will know what it can spend on investment for years to come. Until now, London Transport investment plans have been approved in theory for a three-year period; in practice, they were chopped and changed every year, as in the savage cuts imposed on London Underground investment in the last year of the previous Administration. I cannot over-estimate to the House the value of being able to plan ahead in that way and to secure greater productivity in the use of capital. It will mean the travelling public—and London Underground employees—will get more reliable, better quality investment, delivered far more efficiently and cost-effectively.
Over the past year, London Transport has been laying the foundations for the public-private partnership. We have restructured the LT board, with Sir Malcolm Bates as chairman, Denis Tunnicliffe as the chief executive, and Derek Smith as the managing director of the underground. New board members with substantial financial and other experience will be announced shortly.
London Underground is creating within itself three infrastructure companies as well as the operating company which will remain in the public sector throughout, and will be made properly accountable to Londoners through their new elected assembly and mayor.
I am pleased to announce that London Transport is, today, inviting companies to pre-qualify as bidders to invest in the underground. Bidders will need to demonstrate the right mix of professional and project management skills and to harness the finance needed to take the tube into the 21st century.
Some concern has been expressed about the time needed to get to this point. I can assure the House that we do not intend to repeat the mistakes made by the previous Administration in planning the Jubilee line extension—now more than £1 billion over budget—the money wasted in British Rail privatisation, which amounted to billions

of pounds, or the channel tunnel rail link deal, which we had to rescue from financial collapse. We decided to take the time to get it right and to protect the interests of the taxpayer.
In the autumn, selected bidders will be invited to submit tenders, based on a rigorous performance and payment system. For passengers, that will mean fewer delays, greater capacity and a higher quality of service. The Health and Safety Commission has been fully involved because safety is, of course, a top priority. We are aware of considerable interest in the market so we have good reason to expect keenly priced bids. However, as I have made clear before, we will not contemplate deals being done if they do not offer best value to the taxpayer.
For many years I have advocated linking the national railway with the underground to make it easier for the public to travel to, from, within and across London. I have therefore decided to allow London Transport to explore with Railtrack a way of linking the national rail network to the sub-surface lines in a public-private partnership under which Railtrack would undertake and finance the maintenance and upgrading of the sub-surface lines for London Underground, under contract to London Underground, and Railtrack would build links between the underground and the national rail lines.
This London link plan opens up exciting new possibilities for integration between surface and underground rail, providing fast new connections between all the major transport hubs, including London's five airports and the channel tunnel rail link terminals—a true example of a modern, integrated transport system. In particular, new services could run directly from Heathrow in the west into the City, connected to the channel tunnel link, and from Brighton via London Gatwick and east London to north London and beyond. Once these are in place, all five London airports—including Stansted, Luton and City airport—will have direct rail links into and through London, all connecting with the channel tunnel rail link. The plan will deliver a joined-up London—real integration for a world-class city.
There has been considerable speculation about a possible Railtrack takeover of the tube. That has never been part of our thinking. Unlike the Conservative party, we reject the approach based on selling off everything in sight quickly and then hoping for the best.
Railtrack has confirmed, and will announce, that it will not seek to pre-qualify for the two deep-tube public-private partnership competitions. Let me make it clear that throughout the negotiations we will impose rigorous conditions. Railtrack will have to improve on its previous record, especially on project management.
The vast majority of London Transport staff serve the public well, often suffering the same frustrations with an ageing infrastructure that passengers experience. I should like to place on record our appreciation for staff members' efforts, and to reassure them of two things. First, they will benefit more than most by having an upgraded system with a secure investment programme for years to come. Nothing could be worse for London Transport staff than to leave the underground to deteriorate further.
Secondly, I reiterate the assurances that I gave last year on employment rights, concessionary fares and pensions. People have welcomed the guarantees given to staff who transfer to a London Underground infrastructure company, but they ask what will happen to those who


transfer to a sub-contractor. I can confirm today that the concessionary travel and pension arrangements also apply to any current LU staff members who subsequently transfer to a sub-contractor, provided that they remain in tube work. We will take the necessary steps to ensure that.
London is withstanding severe competitive pressure. We are determined that it should remain the premier city in Europe as we enter the new millennium. Investing in a world-class transport system is a vital element of the plans. We are already expanding the public transport network. By the end of 1999, London will have four major additions to its transport network—a new riverbus service, the full Jubilee line extension, the Croydon tramlink and the docklands light railway extension. From next year, the mayor of London will be able to build a properly integrated transport strategy for London.
At the end of the previous century, the London underground was the world's first metropolitan railway. During this century, it expanded, enabling London to grow as a great capital city. Our aim, as we enter the 21st century, is to ensure that London remains a global city with a world-class transport system.
The public-private partnership will bring £7 billion to modernise the tube. It will get away from stop-go investment and improve the quality of service for passengers. By exploring the imaginative London-link plan of through-running surface railways and sub-surface tube lines, London can look forward to a genuinely joined-up transport system. That is no less than Londoners deserve.

Mr. John Redwood: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement. It was less joined up than muddled up, but welcome none the less, as it gives us a chance to ask some questions about the real issues facing London transport.
With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), and her team, who fought valiantly against the follies of the Government's transport policy. I welcome my new team and congratulate my new shadow Cabinet colleague. We regard transport as sufficiently important to deserve full shadow Cabinet status within the framework of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
I have some advice for the Deputy Prime Minister. The man people outside the House like to call "two Jags John" should try to keep both cars and the chauffeur. This statement means continuing delays and chaos on the underground. Once high-living Ministers discovered that there was no first-class accommodation on the tube, they put their policy on ice for a couple of years.

Mr. Tony McNulty: When did the right hon. Gentleman last travel on the tube?

Mr. Redwood: I regularly travel on the tube, unlike the Deputy Prime Minister, who uses it only for photo opportunities and takes his Jaguar along to pick him up when the going gets sticky. He showed his lack of touch on the tube when he tried to push around a ticket machine. The statement shows that he is no more successful when he tries to push the whole railway system around.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister know that his two-year delay in designing a new policy for the underground has made matters a lot worse for all those who travel from High Barnet to Morden, from Ealing Broadway to Epping or to and from many other stops on the tube? Does he realise that since he took over from the Conservatives, service quality has plummeted, cancellations and delays are the order of the day and investment has been savaged?
We all remember Labour's promises. Before May 1997 a tube train broke down once every 21 minutes. That was not nearly good enough, so we proposed privatisation and a big injection of new money. After two years of new Labour, a tube train breaks down once every 16 minutes, and the Government have cut the investment. They dared to tell Londoners that things could only get better. They have got a great deal worse.
Over the final 10 years of Conservative Government, we made steady investment in the tube system—[Laugher.] Labour Members should read the figures; the Labour Government are spending a quarter less than was being spent when they came to power, while they should have been spending more. The Government have cancelled privatisation, and there is a great hole in the accounts. No one knows where the extra money will come from or even whether the tube can keep going. I pay tribute to the staff who struggle to do well in extremely difficult circumstances without any clear policy or any decent investment. Far from giving managers certainty, the Government have left them in the dark.
The Secretary of State has pulled off an almost impossible treble. The unions are against him, the Treasury is against him and most of the potential bidders are also opposed to his scheme. Everyone has told him that franchises should be longer than 15 years, but he knows best. He will not achieve good value for money for the taxpayer. Does he realise that there is a huge gap between the expectations that Labour aroused before the election and the reality of public transport since then?

Mr. McNulty: Mind the gap.

Mr. Redwood: Labour Members understand that much, at least. The Secretary of State should mind the gap. He has certainly failed to mind the shop.
How many extra services will the Deputy Prime Minister pledge to introduce? How many new train sets will be available over the next two years? When will the rate of breakdowns return to the level that he inherited from the Conservatives? The rate is now much higher. What will be the extra burden on taxpayers as a result of his policy? What will happen if the new mayor disagrees with his plans?
When will the Railtrack heads of agreement become a binding contract? What guarantee will the Deputy Prime Minister secure regarding responsibility for safety? Does he regret saying that a fragmented railway would be a less safe railway, now that he has decided to fragment it himself? What is his new, and delayed, timetable for the proposals? Is there any hope of their introduction before the next general election, or will he go to the public having done nothing to improve the tube?
What can the Deputy Prime Minister say to reassure Londoners about future fare levels? How does he explain his change of heart about Railtrack? He used to condemn it, he threatened to re-nationalise it and now he wants to give it a bye into the next bidding round without any competition.
The Deputy Prime Minister rants and raves about the private rail companies but he has no idea how to run a railway. Few people want to buy a second-hand railway from him. His transport policy is to clobber the motorist, bankrupt the haulier, invite in the foreign lorry, put a bus lane on the M4 so that traffic can tail back to the M25 and give us Hobson's choice on public transport. Today's statement is another milestone along the traffic jam that passes for Labour's transport policy. How will that policy work, and what can the Deputy Prime Minister do to make it better?

Mr. Prescott: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and welcome him to his new role as the shadow spokesman on the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I hope that he will eventually begin to learn the facts of his case—it is a little early for him to understand them now. I also hope that working with the environment will bring him more in touch with planet earth.
May I also express my appreciation for the kind remarks of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). I will certainly miss her friendly face and, at times, her cutting tongue. She will be sadly missed from the Front Bench. She feared that she would be replaced by a face that was younger or fresher—I am not so sure that that has been achieved.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out a catalogue of disasters on the underground. He is right. There are delays, considerable problems and breakdowns. However, 18 years of disinvestment in the underground to the extent of £1.2 billion would affect the quality of the service. If he is not sure about that £1.2 billion disinvestment in 18 years, I must point out that in the last year of the previous Administration £360 million was cut from investment in the underground. How the right hon. Gentleman has the cheek to come to the House and lecture us about the quality of a railway system in which the previous Government massively disinvested, and which had no future and no possibility of securing investment, I do not know.
In the two years that I have been in this job, I have reorganised the underground system. While I was doing so, I was also renegotiating the deal for the channel tunnel rail link, which had collapsed under the previous Administration. We were being asked for £1 billion more. I renegotiated and arranged new bond financing and it did not cost us a penny more. That is the difference in approach, in detail and in fact, of this Government, and we have produced a good system.
We are now embarked on the process that I described, which will keep the system publicly owned and publicly accountable because we do not believe in a privatised system. That is what we are doing in the three proposed contracts and our work with Railtrack. I well understand Railtrack's difficulties. It was not given any regulatory control and has been free to do whatever it likes—in the main, to make an awful lot of profit—because the previous Administration put no controls on it. Railtrack has made millions of pounds at the taxpayer's expense.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: What are you going to do?

Mr. Prescott: I am just about to tell the hon. Gentleman. He may have entered the shadow Cabinet, but

he should not get too keen at this stage. He will find that I negotiated another deal for the channel tunnel rail link, which involved Railtrack, but I ensured that the controls and contracts were tight enough to ensure that we achieved 10 per cent. completion ahead of time and on budget. I wish that I could have done that with the Jubilee line, for which the previous Administration were responsible.
During the past two years I have had to deal with all those problems. I have come to the conclusion that this is the best way forward. It will bring about the investment that we are agreed needs to be put into the transport system. However, I have suggested much more. I have offered a vision of integration—the connection of transport systems—to make London a truly global city at the transport hub of Europe and the world. That is the vision that one needs for transport and that is what I am embarked on.
Frankly, many of the questions that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) posed he almost answered himself. He is not in tune with the facts—although I will allow him a little more time to study them, as he has only just entered the job.
I shall give one quick example. The right hon. Gentleman should not rely on what he reads in the press for information; he should go and find out. He mentioned the M4 bus priority lane and all the talk of tailbacks. Last Friday, I did the journey myself to find out what was happening. I did the journey right through the so-called tailbacks—

Mr. Redwood: What time of day?

Mr. Prescott: At 8.00 am. I did 15 miles in 15 minutes. That does not sound like congestion to me. The buses were going faster and offering—[HON. MEMBERS: "In the wrong lane."] No, no. In exactly those lanes. As I understand it, the Highways Agency has also made it clear that the effect on motorists is neutral. I would say, "Find out for yourself instead of relying on the press and we will get a better-quality transport debate."

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that investment in London Underground is so disastrously overdue that what he has proposed will be regarded as an enormous step forward. The neglect of the previous Government was both criminal and shameful. My right hon. Friend's decisions on the staff will be warmly welcomed by those who believe that we cannot run a railway system without the men and women who are fundamental to its operation. They must have faith and certain assurances before they are able to fulfil their task to the best of their ability. However, he will be aware that Railtrack has an extremely poor record of fulfilling its investment obligations. There is no point trying to hide the fact that the company makes large sums of money, and does not carry out what it has promised. I warmly welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend is keeping the assets in state hands, but there will be reservations about Railtrack, and a demand for tight and constant monitoring. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the project will not be left entirely to a management who are already beginning to whinge about


their share price, even though many of us believe that they are already making outrageous profits out of the taxpayer, with little to show in return?

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She makes sound points about transport and about the workers in that industry—indeed I have constantly given those workers assurances about guaranteeing their pensions. I had to do so because, under many of the privatisations, people were robbed of their pensions. In respect of one privatisation by the previous Administration—that of the National Bus Company—I have already announced to the House that it has now cost the taxpayer about £360 million to compensate for the injustice that was perpetrated on those people. That is why I have had to spend so much time reassuring people about their employment rights.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about Railtrack. I agree that there has been more concern over share prices than over the level of investment in the industry. That point was made by the regulator appointed by the previous Administration. I now have a tougher regulator; furthermore, a different regulator will be appointed for the underground. We intend to have public accountability for public money; that is what we shall do in order to secure investment.

Mr. Tom Brake: I listened to the Secretary of State's statement with interest, awaiting new information about the public-private partnership, but there was none. There was merely a restatement of past investment plans. I have several questions that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer. If there is further delay to the PPP plans, what allowance has he made for the extra finance that will be required to ensure that maintenance and investment continue? At what point will he show that the public-private partnership is best value, and will he use the public sector comparator to do that? Are the Government holding discussions with other consortiums—which could, of course, include Railtrack—about the possible integration between the national rail network and the sub-surface lines to which he has referred? Will there be competition, or is only Railtrack in the running? What level of fines does he plan to impose on Railtrack, if it performs badly? Finally, is it with a sense of dread or of pride that he proposes to hand over part of London Underground to Railtrack?

Mr. Prescott: In relation to investment and any possible delays that may occur in the completion of the contracts, of course investment will be kept up. We showed that when we came into office by finding about £360 million to reverse the cuts that had been made. [Interruption.] That was during our first two years. We said, therefore, that, when the contracts were negotiated, we would consider meeting some of the investment from a public-private partnership. One of the purposes of my statement today was—as I said—to announce that I am embarking on inviting bids for those three PPPs, and that is what we are doing. Any resources needed to maintain the level of investment will therefore be met. That is our obligation.
In relation to the use of the public sector comparator, as a member of the Transport Sub-Committee, the hon. Gentleman is aware that that is our commitment; we have

to show value for money and we shall use that practice. However, we cannot do that until we get the deal and we shall not get the deal for a little while—I suppose that is only logical. When we have completed the negotiations, we shall be forced to make the comparison—we have to do that. That is value for money, using the best-value principle to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We can reassure the Sub-Committee about that.
As for Railtrack and the investment deal, it is a unique deal between Railtrack and London Underground, both of which own the tracks that are involved. We have given them an opportunity to combine those tracks in a unique way.
We shall start the negotiations now, and we hope to achieve heads of agreement by autumn. Then, if the deal satisfies the tests that the hon. Gentleman wishes to apply, or we achieve what we consider to be value for money or our objectives of integration, we shall proceed. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep the House informed of progress.

Joan Ruddock: As one who joined my right hon. Friend on the shadow transport team all of 10 years ago, I can testify to his long-term commitment to the London link line, as he described it today. Can he confirm, in the interests of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends representing south London, that when that vision is brought forth, there will be an extension of the East London line from New Cross Gate to Croydon?

Mr. Prescott: I recall the occasion on which my hon. Friend and I worked together on that team and mapped out the M25, then known as the orbital link, which required the building of a new section of the East London line. I am pleased to say that that is exactly what the proposals I have announced today will do and that the connection she suggests will be made. For the first time, we shall have an orbital link around London and a line that is as close to a cross-London link as we are likely to achieve in the immediate future.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Given the Government's disarray on the subject of the underground during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, may we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government's confidence in the outcome is now such that they will be prepared to subject themselves to the most vivid litmus test of all—a debate on the underground in Government time, rather than in Opposition time?

Mr. Prescott: From beside me comes the whisper, "Not yet." There are many competing claims on the time of the House, but I understand that there is to be an Adjournment debate tomorrow on the very subject of connecting London's surface and sub-surface lines. I believe that that debate is to be introduced by a Labour Member representing London.

Mr. Harry Cohen: I warmly welcome the long overdue investment and the links between London's surface and underground lines, but can my right hon. Friend tell me where the public element of the public-private partnership is to come from? Will there be any public subsidy for the operations of London


Underground next year and beyond? If not, and if that money were to come from higher fares or congestion charging, which would restrict the freedom of action of the future London mayor, does my right hon. Friend recognise that that would be unsatisfactory? When will we hear further details of the public element of the PPP?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend will be aware from his experience of the activities of the Greater London council that there have always been great restrictions on fares and investment policy; and that the GLC was unable to find the resources necessary for investment, even though fares continued to increase. We need to get the finances of the underground onto a proper footing. The system is publicly owned; we are mortgaging the assets and those assets will return to public ownership, so there is public accountability.
The judgment to be made is on the balance between the income derived from fares and investment. That will be the subject of negotiations on the PPPs and a matter for the mayor during the final stages of that process and when the system is in operation. I do not suppose for one moment that there will not be further demand for new underground investment—I am talking only about existing links. Judgments will have to be made about whether public money is to be used for investment or whether that money will have to come from fares. To be frank, I do not think that all the money can come from fares; there will have to be some public money involved in investment.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: My constituents will be disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has made yet another statement on the future of the underground without announcing that there is to be full privatisation. This afternoon, he has said yet again that the Government do not believe in privatisation. Perhaps he does not realise that he is being rather—you might not allow me to use the word "hypocritical" Madam Speaker. I see that you will not, so I shall say instead that the right hon. Gentleman is being inconsistent when he says that he does not believe in privatisation. Does he not realise that Railtrack, on which the proposals he has announced this afternoon depend, would not even exist had it not been for the successful privatisation of British Rail carried out by the Conservative Government?

Mr. Prescott: Perhaps I could help the hon. Lady with her difficulty with descriptions. I understand that she was an adviser to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) when he was the Secretary of State for Transport in the previous Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Distinguished".] He may have been distinguished, but he did not have too many facts about rail privatisation. The stupid ideas then proposed cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, and I am having to deal with the problems that they caused.
It is a bit much for the hon. Lady—who entered Parliament at the last election—to tell us what should be done to improve rail transport. I do not know what she said during the election campaign, but everybody else thought that the privatised railway lacked investment and

was failing, as was Railtrack. We are seeking to change that situation, and hon. Members will be able to measure our success by the next election.

Mr. John Cryer: I welcome increased investment in the tube, which is badly needed. What kind of return on that investment does my right hon. Friend envisage the private sector will look for over 15 years?

Mr. Prescott: It will depend on the bids made by different companies. It is argued that, because of its circumstances, Railtrack can borrow much more cheaply than other companies. That is one difference between the different bids and it is one of the reasons why I am glad that Railtrack has agreed not to bid for the deep lines. If it had bid, there would have been a deficit of interest.

Mr. Jenkin: Who wants it?

Mr. Prescott: The signs are clear and stories in today's papers suggest that companies will be pleased to bid. However, I must wait and see. I have announced the pre-qualifying period and, as to the rates of return—which vary between companies—I will wait and see what terms I am offered. Competition will have an effect on those rates, and I will take that into account.

Mr. Edward Davey: In his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), the right hon. Gentlemen said that he could guarantee investment in London Underground from April next year. Has he talked to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that? If so, what sorts of sums will come from the public purse to ensure that that investment continues?

Mr. Prescott: The first sum from the public purse was the £360 million—

Mr. Davey: Answer the question.

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I am in touch with the Chancellor. We have already announced the investment over the three-year programme. It is true that a year with zero subsidy had been envisaged because we hoped that some of the contracts would be completed before the Greater London Authority is established. We are not prepared to step back and say that that will be a zero funding period, but I am negotiating on PPP contracts at present and we will look for investment. As with the channel tunnel rail link, we may be able to spread investment over time. That is a matter for negotiation, but the House may be assured that there will be investment during that period.

Mr. Clive Efford: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and draw his attention to the fact that, beyond the Jubilee line extension and the docklands light railway, my constituents and those in surrounding areas do not have direct access to London Underground. They rely primarily on Network SouthEast to commute to and from central London. Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the potential that the East London line has to extend to North Kent lines rather than westward


to Croydon? That would provide a direct link to London Underground in central London for people in south-east London.

Mr. Prescott: I have often asked how we can make the existing infrastructure work more effectively. Sometimes it is a matter of filling in the gaps. There was mention of "mind the gap"; but "bridge the gap" is important for rail infrastructure. We are considering different ways of achieving that.
I have united the national railway and underground systems for the first time, which will create considerable potential. The bid that I have allowed and the agreement with Railtrack—if we can achieve it—will see the union of the national railway system and the underground system. We will want to explore other potentials, but—in view of the timetable—that is more likely to be a matter for the London authority and the London mayor rather than for me.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I use the underground twice a day, almost every working day of the week—like thousands of my constituents. Anything that can be done to improve the service on the tube is welcome. However, I think there is a danger of painting too black a picture of the tube, which, considering its limitations, provides a first-class service. Although it suffers terrible difficulties—including breakdowns and other problems—by and large, it is a very effective service, and I pay tribute to Sir Malcolm Bates and his staff. What provision will the right hon. Gentleman make to ensure that the feet of the contractors involved are held to the fire more effectively than occurred previously, when one of the greatest civil engineering companies in the world had to be brought in to finish the Jubilee line extension?

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments about the running of the service. I have tended to react to the introductory comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the quality and level of service. The staff do a very good job under difficult circumstances and they enable 840 million people to move around that system. That is one of the biggest contributions to the movement of people of any transport system. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we need to draw up tight contracts. I shall cite in evidence the contract that I negotiated on the channel tunnel rail link, which he should compare with the one that I inherited, and he will see the difference that I am trying to make to our transport systems.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I contribute to the proceedings as someone who does not care to drive in London or to bring his car here? What is the state of the tunnels, and what advice has the Department been given? Is not it true that tunnels age, like the rest of us, and that the Victorian tunnels are ageing together? The idea that stone lasts for ever is simply not true. What advice has been given about the long-term problems of renovating, and in some cases, rebuilding tunnels that have lasted a century or a century and a half, but which, as I said, are all ageing together?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A number of years ago, I discussed with the

chairman of the underground how one deals with investment on that scale. Much of the system, including many of the walls, bridges and tunnels, is 100 years old, and would cost billions of pounds to replace. Because of disinvestment in that infrastructure, the replacement costs would be as much as those for the sewerage system which was built 100 years ago.
One of the advantages of our proposals is that we can consider those assets, as companies need to do, and assess the risks. If public and private money is to be involved in the underground, a judgment must be made about risk. That risk is greatly influenced by the quality of investment and assets.
As anyone who is familiar with the London Underground system will know, there is a considerable amount of water in the system and pumps work all the time just to keep the water at the correct level. The age of the system is a problem, and I cannot kid myself that the proposals that I have announced today address all the fundamental problems of dealing with all the long-term deterioration of the underground's ageing assets.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the opportunities for improvement in the future as a result of the invitation to bidders, will he explain the precise difference between pre-qualification and qualification? Secondly, when did he last travel on the Northern line or the Circle line, both of which, I am sure he will agree, have been afflicted by serious problems? What scale and speed of improvement in their services does he anticipate?

Mr. Prescott: I often travel on the underground and have done so two or three times in the past week. I think everyone in the House has a great deal of experience of it. I was grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) about the quality of the service despite the difficulties.
The difference between pre-qualifying and qualifying arises from the fact that it will be very expensive to bid for the deals, so we shall invite people to bid in the pre-qualifying stage, when they can say whether they are interested and what their plans are. If, by the autumn, they have done so—I believe that a number of them will—we will invite one or two to take the more significant step of making a serious bid. It is a very expensive proposition to make a bid under the proposals. The different stages are therefore intended to distinguish the serious contenders—some of whom, I have no doubt, will be consortiums—and we shall have to judge which of them we should invite to make a more permanent, serious bid.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I welcome the statement, but I want to highlight the daily problems experienced by many hundreds of thousands of people who travel into central London from east London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a problem of capacity on the Central line and that, despite his welcome announcement, there are difficulties that must be tackled so that capacity can be increased for travelling from east to west across London? Will he and his colleagues reconsider the possibilities of using crossrail or an alternative means to improve capacity for travelling across our city?

Mr. Prescott: I would not want to encourage my hon. Friend to think that we had in mind another £4 billion or


£5 billion project for crossrail—certainly not during the next two years, when I would have responsibility for it. The proposals that I presented today allow for cross-London transport and will be welcomed. We are also looking at ways to increase the throughput of trains, which can be achieved by improvements to signalling and track to enable trains to go faster and to be better controlled. In that way, we will get more "flights", as they are called, along the routes, which will give us more capacity. Furthermore, the bids include the lengthening of some station platforms, so that we can put more coaches on trains. Even though there may still be the same length of track, we plan to work it much more effectively and efficiently than at present. That will be one of the benefits of the investment.

Mr. Geraint Davies: First, does my right hon. Friend agree that the £7 billion announced today represents much better value for money to the taxpayer than the privatisation of Railtrack, which was sold for £1.9 billion and is now valued at £8 billion? Secondly, does he agree that we all welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is going down the tube? Thirdly, does my right hon. Friend envisage the integration of the current tube network and the newly arriving tramlink in Croydon, which he was kind enough to mention in his proposals? The people of Croydon welcome the initiative and look forward to the integration of London transport, which includes the link-up of tramlink to the wider network.

Mr. Prescott: I certainly believe that the £7 billion is an investment in the future of London and will be welcomed by everyone. It is clearly needed, and we look forward to getting the agreements to achieve it. On the question whether the Croydon light railway system will be integrated, I have told my hon. Friend previously that various opportunities arise once one stops thinking of the underground, the national rail system and airports as separate, and begin to integrate them and find ways of making the system work more effectively. That is a practical example of how we can get value for money.

Dr. Howard Stoate: May I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome his statement on joined-up transport for London will be to my constituents, many of whom are commuters? Can he reassure my constituents in Dartford that the channel tunnel rail link phase 2, including the Ebbsfleet station, is on target and will deliver the much-needed improved services for Britain and the whole of Europe?

Mr. Prescott: Yes.

Point of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. According to the front page of the Financial Times—not exactly our most sensationalist newspaper—the people responsible for leading the Kosovo Liberation Army are somewhat truculent and have stated that they will not lay down their arms to NATO and that they regard themselves as the core of an army for an independent state of Kosovo. Indeed, the report goes further than that and suggests that they might be part of a force for a Greater Albania. That has urgent consequences. Have you had any request from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office to make a statement on the matter before Thursday's debate?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by Ministers that they seek to make a statement on such matters. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we have a debate on the issue on Thursday. If he tries to catch my eye, I hope that I may be able to allow him to speak, and perhaps he will raise the issue at that time.

Safety At Sea

Mr. Mike Hancock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require testing of the competency of users of pleasure and recreational craft; and to require the carrying of minimum safety equipment while at sea.
I am delighted to be given the opportunity of raising an issue that is important to many people and causes concern to hon. Members with maritime constituencies. There is an on-going problem in dealing with competency and safety factors relating to leisure craft.
If most Englishmen believe that every Englishman's home is his castle, every Briton believes that he is a born sailor and has gifts of navigation and knowledge of the sea, without ever attempting to gain such expertise. Because of that, every year—if not every day or month—people's lives are put at risk.
There are 3.5 million leisure craft in the United Kingdom and barely 35,000 of the people who use those craft have signed up for recognised competence courses. I accept of course that many more people have those skills, having gone through the recognised courses organised by the various sailing associations and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but a number of safety issues need to be addressed. My local newspaper, The Portsmouth News, has campaigned hard on this matter because weekly, and sometimes even daily, it records incidents in which people's lives were put at risk because they simply did not have the knowledge, or the equipment on their leisure craft, to get back to harbour safely or to summon help.
Reading those reports has sickened me, and only a few weeks ago three men in a boat—none of whom were swimmers and all of whom lacked any competence—were nearly run down by a supertanker out in deep water. A supertanker has great difficulty in navigating in coastal waters, let alone trying to avoid three people in a small craft which is out of control in front of it.
Once again, we, the community, are faced with picking up the bill for the enormous cost of trying to help people and get them out of danger. I believe that prevention is better than cure and would hope that the Government will seriously consider introducing legislation which is long overdue. At least one person on board a leisure craft should be competent, understand the rules of the sea, know the tides and the area in which the craft is operating and have the necessary navigational skills to take the craft in and out of harbour. More important, there should be safety equipment on board, such as life-jackets or flares to summon help. On some occasions, a simple mobile phone could be the difference between life and death in coastal waters. Mobile phones should be part of the equipment taken to sea.
I am led to believe that the average cost of boats at the marina close to where I live is between £25,000 and £30,000. People will invest that amount of money and spend thousands of pounds a year on mooring fees, but they will not spend tens of pounds to supply life-jackets or to buy a box of flares, which would give them at least a chance should they run into danger. I recognise that organisations such as the Royal Yachting Association, the RNLI and the Coastguard Agency are all working hard to increase awareness of safety at sea, but too many people totally ignore their advice.
Any one of us could buy a fast leisure craft, put it on a trailer and take it out to the sea, although we may be without much engineering skill apart from being able to get our cars started if they have a fault. We could invite two or three friends and their children along and take them out into deep waters—in the channel or anywhere around our shores—without at any stage having to prove whether the boat is seaworthy or whether we have the skills and the safety equipment necessary to ensure that they would at least have a chance if an incident occurred. We might also have no means of communicating with people on shore should we run into difficulty. That cannot go on, because too many lives are at risk.
According to recent Coastguard Agency figures there were 5,500 recorded maritime incidents in 1987. Some people might be critical and say that those figures embrace all sorts of incidents, which they do, and deal with commercial and ferry operators, but 251 people died in sea-related accidents in 1997. In 1998, there were 11,500 incidents and 249 people died. That is a horrendous waste of life. The Coastguard Agency says that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, many of those lives could have been saved if simple competence or life-saving equipment had been possessed. What a needless waste.
The cost to the agencies concerned is remarkable. Raising the coastguard helicopter for a search and rescue mission costs £4,000 an hour and a service helicopter costs £8,000 an hour. Launching a coastguard search and rescue squad costs £3,500 an hour and launching a lifeboat costs about £1,000. That is a horrendous cost for risking those people's lives just because the operators of such leisure craft have behaved stupidly and arrogantly in our waters.
We must give a lead, and act responsibly. Some have suggested the creation of a licence similar to those that people need in order to drive cars; others have proposed a tax to pay for the rescue services, an idea with which the Coastguard Agency has flirted. I do not want that. What I want is strong action, and for us no longer to allow incompetent people to take great risks, on their own behalf and on behalf of those whom they invite to accompany them—in many instances, young children, most of them without life-jackets, who could not swim in deep, rough water even if they wanted to.
Many hon. Members will have stood on a quay in a coastal resort and seen leisure craft leave the marinas and harbours. All of them look wonderful, but how many people on them are wearing safety harnesses? Professional sailors, and those who are keen on their sport—racing sailors, and the leisure yachting fraternity—take stringent safety measures. They are the ones who can stand up and be counted, but too many others cannot.
The stark difference is this. When a professionally organised regatta goes badly wrong in Weymouth bay and 55 people are in the water because of a sudden change in the weather, all of them have proper safety equipment, all are picked up, and the whole disaster—or possible disaster—is over in minutes. Let us compare that with what happened to three inexperienced sailors in the middle of the Solent when something went wrong. Such people risk their own lives, and the lives of others on ferries and other craft on the Solent. More important, they risk the lives of those who work on our behalf: the winchmen in the helicopter, or the lifeboat crew, who have to go out to save them.
A colleague of mine recounted a story about what happened after a firework display after the end of Cowes week last year. As his craft was returning across the Solent, a sudden fog descended. There were dozens of boats on the Solent, most of them with no navigational lights. Their only means of getting back to harbour safely was to follow the Isle of Wight ferry into port. Can hon. Members imagine the disaster that could have occurred if at that time of night a large tanker had left the Fawley terminal? What if a tanker weighing a quarter of a million tonnes, steaming down the Solent and heading into deep water, were confronted with that sort of nonsense in the middle of a fog? There is no excuse for it. We simply cannot allow such arrogance to continue.
I hope that the House welcomes the opportunity for the issue to be aired. An abundance of literature from all the agencies asks people to join the safety campaign and to take note, but that is not enough. Fewer than 1 per cent. of those currently using leisure craft around our coasts have signed up to such commitments. That should not be allowed to continue. I commend the Bill to the House, and hope that we shall now see some action from Government to bring about a substantial improvement in the position.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I oppose the Bill, although I am glad that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has raised the issue, and agree wholeheartedly with what he has said about safety equipment and the importance of people knowing how they should operate on the sea.
This is, in a sense, a typically Liberal Democrat measure, in that we are not sure what would be in the Bill if it were printed; but the hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that everyone should be qualified to go out in a boat. I learned to sail when I was 12, and I suspect that the person who taught me was not qualified. For many years, I taught scouts to sail. I suspect that I, too, was not qualified when I started to do that, other than by experience. Indeed, the Scout Association decided that everyone supervising scouts should have RYA qualifications. We went to a lot of trouble in Yorkshire to acquire those qualifications. The centre there runs scout sailing and has fully qualified instructors under the RYA scheme, but it is one of the few places where people can learn to sail. People with the opportunity to sail a boat—for example, an experienced sailor—cannot simply say, "I am going to take a group of scouts out." That is the great problem.
We have to put the matter into context. I know that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South asked for advice from the RYA about the size of the problem. Are we doing badly in the United Kingdom? I understand that he has been sent a copy of a table from Ocean Projects Ltd, which shows the United Kingdom, for once, at the bottom of a league table where it wants to be at the bottom: the UK has the fewest number of deaths per vessel in the whole world. That supports what we are saying.
The UK's system is working extremely well. Of course, we must ensure that people are constantly told of the dangers of going out to sea, but I am always wary of saying that a person is qualified because he did a course

for a week and came out with a bit of paper at the end. The one thing people know who have been sailing as long as I have is how little we know and how difficult things can get if we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where the gear has broken, or whatever. On such occasions we have to use our long experience to deal with the problems.
I happen to have a British Canoe Union certificate because of my scouting involvement. I happen to have an RYA certificate, again because of my scouting involvement, but my experience based on years of sailing is much more important. That is a sensible arrangement.
I am wary of the situation where we should have licences for those on boats. In my garage, I have a canoe that has not been out for several years. I suspect that, if I had to have it licensed, or to have something of that nature, it would never get out because I would always think, "Is it going out this year?" I have a windsurfer. Unfortunately, I have been out with it only once this year, but, again, the opportunity to go out is important. People do have to operate simply. [Interruption.] For anyone who wants to talk about my majority of 77, it is now equivalent to a majority of 120 per cent. over both the major parties in my constituency, and two and a half times that over the Labour party candidate. I am grateful for the heckle, but I do not want to stray from the subject.
We must keep telling people about the safety problem, but the most significant point is that the RYA is wholly against what the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South is proposing, despite the fact that it would run the training courses and make all the money out of certificating people. It wants to encourage people to learn, but to keep the dead hand of regulation from leisure boating. We all have to work together. I welcome, as I say, what has been said because it highlights the fact that we need to be aware of the problem, but we should also congratulate ourselves on our safe record.
The previous Government and the present Government have all pressed for additional safety equipment, particularly in the professional area and for larger boats. All sorts of things are currently available to stop people getting into trouble. My neighbour has bought a boat. He has never been sailing or boating before, but, sensibly, he is working with people who know how to operate a boat. He will gain the necessary experience. I suspect that most of those people who will offer that sensible help and buy all the right equipment do not have a paper qualification that says that they are qualified to be on that particular vessel. It is important to bear that fact in mind.
I am grateful that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South mentioned safety in Weymouth bay because it experienced the sort of incident that no one expected. Suddenly, from nowhere, a squall came up and waves appeared, the like of which we had never had in the bay before. As a result 70 vessels were left in the water—I believe that the hon. Gentleman said that 58 were in the water. I think that even more people were in the water. Many people had to rescue themselves. The rescue service was fantastic and the House should pay tribute to those involved. I notice the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) in her place. I hope that she will not mind me saying that one of the chief officers of the local authority telephoned me and asked me to make the point that if Weymouth were to lose its co-ordination centre, there would not be the effective co-ordination that we saw on that occasion.
I hope that the Minister will take that in the spirit in which it is meant and that we can look at what is going to happen.
We rely on our Coastguard Agency and all the helicopters and other services. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South talked about the Englishman's home being his castle and so on, and leisure boating is one of our freedoms. If the Government want to do something, I suspect that one way to save lives would be to ban the use of airbeds on the sea. That is one of the most dangerous things that people can use. We should look at things such as that rather than trying to overregulate. Let us spend money telling people about the importance of having proper safety equipment on board and of experience, but we should not put a hurdle in the way of more people getting on to the water.
I am sure that the House will be happy to know that the House of Commons versus the House of Lords sailing race was held on the Thames this morning and was won by the House of Commons. We do not need to abolish the House of Lords to win such things. The House of Lords is ahead by six to five in the series and we should keep the House of Lords so that we can beat it fair and square rather than try to abolish it. I oppose the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Brian Cotter, Dr. Rudi Vis, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Bob Russell, Mr. Peter Viggers, Mr. Syd Rapson, Mr. Richard Allan and Mr. Nigel Jones.

SAFETY AT SEA

Mr. Mike Hancock accordingly presented a Bill to require testing of the competency of users of pleasure and recreational craft; and to require the carrying of minimum safety equipment while at sea: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 119].

Health Bill [Lords] and Immigration and Asylum Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Health Bill [Lords] and the Immigration and Asylum Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Health Bill [Lords] shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second allotted day.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith **put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings—

(a) on the Health Bill [Lords];
(b) on the Immigration and Asylum Bill at the sitting this day until midnight;
(c) on the Immigration and Asylum Bill on the second allotted day;

and those proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

4.—(1) If at the sitting this day—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to seven o'clock, and
(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time,

the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until midnight.

(2) If on the second allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to seven o'clock or from an earlier day, the Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on either of the Bills.

6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken or to recommit either of the Bills; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either of the Bills except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on this Motion or on either of the Bills, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Interpretation

10. In this Order 'allotted day' means this day and any other day on which the Immigration and Asylum Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

At 10 o'clock last night, in light of the lamentable lack of progress on the Report stage of the Health Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that we would introduce a timetable motion covering the remaining stages of the Health Bill and the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

In an effort to ensure that both those important Bills were satisfactorily debated, the Government had invited the Tory Opposition to proceed by way of an agreed programme motion, but they refused. On three occasions—20 May, 26 May and 10 June—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced that it was intended that the remaining stages of the Health Bill would be dealt with in one day. Not a single Tory objected. None of them expressed the least reservation about dealing with that Bill in one day. Yesterday, on the day appointed for completion of the remaining stages, the Tories decided to spin out the debate. They spent more than three hours debating a Government new clause which the Deputy Speaker had described as being about
technical arrangements on the border."— [Official Report, 14 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 59.]
and about which they had been forewarned in Committee in a letter from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham). Their opposition to the new clause was so important to them that they did not even bother to vote against it, having debated it for three hours. So it went on. Tory Members had to be called to order no fewer than 21 times by the Deputy Speaker during the debate.

There can be no doubt that the Bill has been thoroughly debated. It had 42 hours of debate in the House of Lords and 77 hours in Committee. The Government have responded to the points raised in both Houses by accepting amendments or by introducing our own amendments.

As a result of that proper parliamentary scrutiny, the Bill is better now than when it started out, which is only right and proper. However, last night, improving the Health Bill was not what the Tories were about: to be fair, no one would expect that from the hon. Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—the Burke and Hare of the Tory Back Benches—or from the hon. Members for Altrincham

and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who also adorned the debate.

The attitude of those Tory wreckers was made clear last night, when, simply to protract the proceedings—

Mr. Graham Brady: rose

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it have been in order if I were wrecking a debate? Surely that would have been out of order, and I would have been called to order by the occupant of the Chair. I should therefore like an apology from the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Minister has said nothing out of order.

Mr. Dobson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The attitude of those Tory wreckers was made crystal clear last night, when, simply to protract the proceedings, they voted against three orders agreed by the professions and the Privy Council—

Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dobson: No.
The wreckers voted against three orders to improve the professional regulation of clinical scientists, speech and language therapists and paramedics. I am sure that the members of those professions who were involved, and their patients, will have noted the priorities of the extremists who are now running the Tory party.
The five hours that the motion will provide today for debate on the Health Bill, added to the five and a half hours taken up yesterday, mean that the Bill's remaining stages will occupy 10 and a half hours on the Floor of the House. That is longer, not shorter, than the one day's debate that was envisaged originally and to which the Tories never objected.
The timetable motion deals also with the Immigration and Asylum Bill—an important measure that has been the subject of 93 hours of scrutiny in a Special Standing Committee. That procedure is rarely used, and has never been used before for this type of Bill. The Committee took written and oral evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals outside the House, whose evidence helped to identify the key issues to be raised when the Bill was considered clause by clause. That consideration itself was very detailed.
Once again, therefore, there is no question of curtailing the debate. The motion is necessary simply to ensure that the Immigration and Asylum Bill will be dealt with over the course of the two days earmarked for its remaining stages—which is what the Tories had asked for and which the Government have provided.
As the time taken debating the motion is eating into the time available to debate the Health Bill itself, I shall be brief and simply invite my right. hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: The contribution made by the Secretary of State for Health epitomises the profound arrogance characterising the Government's attitude towards legislation and proper parliamentary scrutiny. Indeed, he is the same Secretary of State who effectively abolished fundholding, and then came to the House for permission to do so one year later. That is entirely typical of the way in which the Government have approached their legislation.
Today, the Government come before the House not with what is called a guillotine, but with a double guillotine, in which a time limitation will be put not only on the Health Bill—which was being debated yesterday—but on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I should like to know, when the Secretary of State for the Home Department replies to the debate, on how many previous occasions there have been double guillotines in the House.
One can, of course, understand the Government's embarrassment. On the Immigration and Asylum Bill, the Government are afraid of their own Back Benchers, and rightly so. When it comes to the Health Bill, the Government are simply afraid to debate their own failure. It is amazing impertinence to suggest a guillotine for a Bill for which the Government have contributed the majority of the business to be considered, thus squeezing out the limited, restrained and responsible input that there has been from the Opposition parties.
The Government have tabled six new clauses on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Because those new clauses have priority, the guillotine will squeeze out debate on Opposition amendments and new clauses. The Government have tabled 82 amendments to the Health Bill. That is rather odd. The Bill started in the Lords, where it was subjected to considerable scrutiny and many of the issues on which the Government have now tabled amendments were raised, but they tabled no amendments then and did not respond. The issues were rehearsed again during the lengthy Committee debate, but the Government did not take that opportunity to table amendments. They then flooded the amendment paper on Report with what they coyly describe as tidying-up amendments and put a guillotine on discussion. That is a most unfortunate and decidedly anti-democratic way of proceeding.
I shall be taking an interest in the Immigration and Asylum Bill and I have been taking an interest in the Health Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on the distinguished way in which he has conducted business on the Immigration and Asylum Bill and other matters in his portfolio in the past two years. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on the detailed way in which he has tackled a complex Bill that refers to many other Acts and raises many highly important issues. He has done that with great distinction. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on succeeding in the task of destroying the Government's now floundering reputation on the health service. I further congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), whose handling of the Committee stage of the Health Bill has rightly attracted praise from both sides of the House.
Regrettably, I cannot extend my congratulations to the Government.

Mr. Charles Wardle: While my right hon. Friend is on the subject of congratulations, will she join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Given the highly unusual nature of this hybrid timetable motion, which requires skill, as well as knowledge and experience of health and home affairs, was he not particularly wise in promoting her to the home affairs role today so that she could deal so effectively with both aspects of the motion?

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has great foresight.
I understand the Government's embarrassment on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. When we introduced a Bill on the subject in 1996, the current Home Secretary and his team accused us of playing the race card, indulging in vulgar electioneering and trying to make race an issue. The measures that we introduced did not go anything like as far as the Government's measures. We are now faced with the forced dispersal of asylum seekers.
In opposition, Labour Members criticised—nay, voted against—our proposals to introduce a speedy return to safe third countries; but what do they do in government? They build on our measures by removing the right to judicial review for people being returned to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently remind the right hon. Lady that we are discussing not the content of the Bill but the allocation of time?

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important that those matters should be discussed in full, which is why we should not have time limitation. I was describing the Government's embarrassment, which is behind the guillotine motion. I will not stretch your patience by going any further into the details, other than to say that the Bill even includes fines for innocent, law-abiding lorry drivers who happen to find an illegal immigrant in the back of their lorry. If I go home and find a burglar and turn him over to the police, will I be fined? It is difficult to see how the analogy would not hold.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend is putting the Opposition's case very strongly, but surely there is an even stronger case in the way in which Government Back Benchers are being gagged because of the Government's embarrassment over the fact that people in the Trappist tendency suddenly spoke. The Government have realised that they could lose more seats than they gained in the general election if Thursday's result were repeated in two years' time.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman's majority is only 77.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for raising that matter. If Thursday's result were repeated, I would have two and a half times as many votes as the Labour candidate. That is why the Government are attacking their own Back Benchers.

Miss Widdecombe: There is no doubt that the Government are extremely frightened, and they have good


reason to be so after last Thursday, when it was clearly demonstrated that they cannot continue with the arrogance and dismissiveness of which the motion is an example. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is not only the Opposition who will be denied adequate time for debate. One can only conclude that to deny time to Government Back Benchers is the main motivation for adding the Immigration and Asylum Bill to a guillotine motion on the Health Bill.
After all, it was the Health Bill that yesterday failed to make progress, in the Government's terms, or was being democratically debated, in our terms. The Government are afraid of what will be said about the Immigration and Asylum Bill, and rightly so, because some of what is being proposed is reasonable, and we would support it in principle, but we remember what Labour Members said before the general election about what they wanted to do and the amount of sheer abuse that they heaped on us for measures, some of which were in the same direction but some of which were rather milder.
The Government have introduced a panic Bill on asylum, because they started off their term of office sending out a message that Britain was a soft touch for bogus asylum seekers. They panicked when they realised that more and more such people were coming in, and when the resultant Bill ran into trouble with their own Back Benchers they decided to curtail debate. That is hardly an impressive way of handling a highly important piece of legislation.
It is most unfortunate that because of the guillotine on the Health Bill, substantial matters—again, deeply embarrassing to the Government—will not be given adequate time for debate. For example, at a stage that we will probably not reach, because of this draconian motion, we have a proposal to replace the ludicrous and discredited emphasis on waiting lists with a far more responsible emphasis on waiting times. We believe that the Government are embarrassed by that. They do not want to stand up and justify their ludicrous preference for raw numbers on lists, which are only too easily manipulated. The Government might not want us to reach that point because they do not want to be obliged to discuss the fact that even under their ludicrous procedures for waiting lists and gross manipulation of them, the lists have still increased by 19,000.
It is only right that we should debate the superior merits of waiting times over lists. What bothers patients is not how many other people need the same operation but how long they will have to wait for their operation. It is right, furthermore, that we take into account not only the time that they have to wait after they have seen the consultant but the time that they have to wait from the point at which their GP refers them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the right hon. Lady that she is straying on to issues that will probably be dealt with later on?

Miss Widdecombe: My point is that I fear that we will not be able to deal with such matters later on. It is because the Government do not wish to deal with those matters later on that they have tabled this allocation of time motion. The motivation behind the motion is to prevent

discussion of the overwhelming arguments for substituting waiting times as the measurement of success of the NHS for the ludicrous waiting lists, and of the slavishness with which the Government compel clinical priorities to be distorted to deliver an ill-thought-out political pledge. I am sorry that we will not have time to discuss that important issue.
It is also important that we discuss the necessary and adequate regulation of the private sector, but that issue comes even further down the list than waiting lists. The Government's unwillingness to discuss that is evidenced by the fact that they slipped out a press release at 3 am. I do not know who was up slipping out press releases at 3 am, but it does not smack of a Government who want their press releases to be noticed.

Mr. Dobson: It was not me.

Miss Widdecombe: I believe the Secretary of State for Health, because he was not even present yesterday for the debate on the Health Bill. He absented himself and we were told why. The Minister of State said that the Secretary of State had better things to do. He had better things to do than to come to the House and to debate this important Bill.

Mr. Dobson: Quite right.

Miss Widdecombe: That comment is wholly in tune with the Prime Minister's attitude to Parliament. He thinks that this House does not matter, that debate in this Chamber does not matter and that the exercise of this House's democratic function does not matter. That is now also the view of the Secretary of State for Health. It is a poor show.
It is important to allow enough time to discuss the regulation of the private sector. In another place, they added a new clause to the Bill to extend the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement to cover the private as well as the public sector. When the Government are using the private sector to deliver their waiting lists pledge and when NHS patients are sent by GPs to the private sector because the NHS cannot meet the demand, it is right that the private sector should be regulated as the public sector is. We should be able to discuss that, but we will not be able to do so because of the allocation of time motion.
When a Secretary of State resorts to pushing press releases out at 3 am, he really does not want to discuss the issues. Nor will we be able to discuss the abolition of fundholding, which comes even lower down the list. Of course, fundholding has already been abolished, but the Government are now seeking the consent of Parliament. They anticipated the consent of Parliament and went ahead, and that is another measure of their dismissive attitude to Parliament.
We also wanted to discuss, in new clause 25, a duty of partnership with the private sector. The Government believe that such a partnership is inimical to the interests of the NHS. It is not: it would enhance the NHS by increasing the total sums available for spending on health. We want to debate that important proposition, but cannot because the Secretary of State is afraid.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful point in support of


centre-right policies and the constructive engagement between public and private sectors. Did not last week's elections reveal that the desire for such policies is shared by people across Europe?

Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. Thursday's election results amounted to a massive endorsement of Conservative policies in this country, and the same was evident across Europe. Through the introduction of proportional representation, the Government were able to save themselves from the humiliation that they should have suffered. They would have won even fewer seats if the elections had been conducted according to the system that the Home Secretary prefers.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady. I seem to be losing my memory a little, so will she tell the House whether she was a member of the previous Government, who brought in large numbers of guillotines on important legislation? Did she ever oppose that practice, or am I thinking of someone else?

Miss Widdecombe: As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the most extraordinary thing about the motion is that it is a double guillotine. It affects a Bill that the Government alleged was not making progress, and also a completely unrelated Bill. I do not think that the hon. Lady will find that that was common under the previous Government.

Mr. Ivan Lewis: If sufficient progress were made to permit a debate on the relationship between the private sector and the national health service, would the right hon. Lady articulate the view of the wing of the Conservative party that believes that the private sector should have an enhanced role, or that of the Leader of the Opposition, who considers that such an approach is inappropriate if his party is ever to get re-elected?

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman's understanding of Conservative party policy on this matter is as poor as his understanding of new clause 25. I suggest that he examines our policy so that he can achieve a more informed view. If he continues to interrupt, we will be unable to discuss the extremely important issues involved.
I shall sum up what I have said. First, the double guillotine motion is unusual and has not been justified. Secondly, those who will suffer, apart from the Opposition, are those Labour Back Benchers who wish to speak on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Thirdly, the Government have flooded the amendment paper with many new clauses and amendments. They are curtailing debate even though those new clauses and amendments will take precedence over matters that they do not want to debate. When they were in opposition, the Government accused their Conservative predecessors of playing the race card, so I can understand their embarrassment at their own proposals on immigration and asylum. I can also understand their embarrassment at longer waiting lists, and why they do not want to debate the validity of their measurements and the Health Bill's impact on the medical profession.
Finally, the proposal reveals the Government's profound arrogance and contempt for the House. Democratic procedures are not well served when debate

is curtailed because there is too much debating going on, nor when a completely unrelated debate is also curtailed because the Government see an opportunity to wriggle out of embarrassment.
I look forward to hearing the Home Secretary's reply, and to many more exchanges with him over the next couple of years.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to be able to speak in this debate on the allocation of time. We must make it clear to the Government and the country how difficult it will be to discuss all the important matters before us in the time available. Perhaps the most serious crisis facing the national health service concerns junior doctors' hours. The Government seek to restrict the time that we can spend on that important matter.
The utterly excessive hours that junior doctors are expected to work without sleep or rest require immediate intervention by the Government. I do not say that the problem is a new one. It was already serious in 1991 when the previous Government introduced the new deal. However, 8,500 junior doctors continue to work, on call, for periods that, during the week, frequently begin at 9 am and continue until 5 pm the following day. At weekends, they work from 9 am on the Saturday through the night on Saturday and through day and night on Sunday before finishing at 5 am on Monday.
The only rest that doctors can take during that 54-hour period is approximately four or five hours of protected sleep won simply because of the courtesy that some doctors cover for others. Either on the Saturday night or on the Sunday, a doctor's colleagues cover for him so that he might hope to be in bed by 1.30 am and stay there until 7 am. Except for those four or five hours of sleep, there is absolutely no rest. Doctors go through that gruelling experience one weekend in every four, and during the following week, they must again spend a full night on duty, working from nine o'clock one morning right through the night until the following afternoon.
It is a scandal that the Government are not allowing us time to debate this matter and bring it to public attention. We need time to debate it because the position is not sufficiently understood, even within the medical profession, for which I have the highest regard. Long hours are required for training, but the situation today is more serious than it has been in the past.

Dr. Evan Harris: I am interested by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. Does he realise that the Liberal Democrats have tabled a new clause on this matter and that we will reach it if he spends less time discussing the guillotine? It is among the early amendments to be discussed, and I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman stays to participate in that debate on a Liberal Democrat proposal for legislation on junior doctors' hours.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad to know that the Liberal Democrats are interested in this matter. New clause 13 will be taken along with new clause 28 and amendment No.180, and I have already written a speech that I hope to have an opportunity to deliver. In the guillotine debate,


however, I must emphasise the need for time and the wrongness of reducing the amount of time available to discuss these issues.
The country should know, through debate in Parliament, the sheer intensity of the work done by the national health service today. Some hon. Members may have heard "Any Questions" the other day. Baroness Jay said that her husband, a distinguished consultant, had told her that he had had to go through all this and that long hours were necessary for training. I do not deny that long hours and rigorous discipline are necessary for training. However, with improved procedures, in-patients being treated in the national health service today are much iller than they were. Patients are discharged much quicker and those who are left in hospital are much iller.
Doctors in general surgery, general medicine or paediatrics—some of the major specialties—do not get to bed. Another story on which we dine out—

Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way before he dines out. Is he aware that a house officer at Addenbrooke's hospital gets only £4.02 in overtime compared with £6.24 for a cleaner? Is that not a slap in the face for workers in the health service from this so-called caring Government?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend's argument emphasises how much this matter needs to be debated in detail. Part of the problem, which is admittedly inherited because this has been going on for some time, is that overtime rates—it is almost an insult to use that expression—for young doctors are not calculated as they would be in any other civilised job. Instead of being paid half as much again or twice as much, they are paid 50 or 70 per cent. of their normal rate.
Health service trusts are under great pressure in all sorts of ways and always have been, but they have been put under even greater pressure as a result of the Government's over-emphasis on waiting lists, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said. We must have time to get across the fact that NHS trusts are abusing that style of payment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) highlighted. It is not right for them to get young doctors on the cheap, when those young people are staggering through the night, hardly able to cope.
I am not exaggerating, as right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench also know. We need time to develop ways to improve that position. In the time available for the debate, we should give credit where it is due. The Government have built on some of our new deal methods. NHS circular 1998/240 set out specific timetables, hours and amounts of rest for young doctors. That circular states that young doctors who are working overnight for 16 hours, from 5 pm to 9 am the following day, should get at least eight hours' rest, of which half should be continuous. We should have time to discuss that, but this debate does not allow us the time to get across to the House and the country the fact that those doctors do not get that rest. It just does not happen in the busy specialties, such as general medicine, paediatrics and general surgery. My goodness, the classic example is renal medicine—there are jokes about that, but they are

in poor taste and I will not make them. Those doctors do not get time to sleep—they stagger on, grossly abused and overworked.
We need time to study in practice what can be done. Something can be done to assist if only we put our minds to it. I am grateful to see the Minister of State nodding. I am sure that he would like to crack that problem. In a funny way, he would probably be grateful if we could find the time to highlight the sheer seriousness of it, so that he could squeeze a little more money out of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor to help him crack it. There are sensible ways to overcome organisational problems, such as bleep systems with senior night nurses, which can relieve the pressure.
One of the difficulties caused by the pressure on waiting times and the extra people who are being put through the hospital system is the sheer amount of time that that takes on admission. We need time to explain that. When we have a chance to debate the matter, we shall find that it means that young doctors are spending their time up until 11 pm—or even later—simply admitting the patients who are coming into hospital to the beds that have become available during that day. We need to debate the sensible suggestions that have been made, such as the one that there should be dedicated admissions units, staffed by young doctors, or other doctors, so that there is rather less pressure on those who are dealing with patients who have already been admitted.
Where shall we find those extra doctors? We need time during the debate for an answer from the Minister as to whether they could not be found—as I have been told—overseas, in the European Union. I hope that that matter can be discussed during the allocated time. I understand that, at present, there is something of a glut—probably only a temporary one—of young medical practitioners in other EU countries. We should invite them over to this country and pay them to assist in tackling the problem.
We need to deal with some important matters. Our objection to these guillotine motions is not merely tactical, nor is it cynical; it is real. These are matters that it is vital for Parliament to discuss. Unless they come out into the open, the country will not be governed and legislation will not be scrutinised in a way that makes a reality of a democratic society.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend as puzzled as I am as to why the guillotine motion was required in the first place? Last night, everyone had accepted that we might sit through the night, and was prepared to do so, if necessary, in order to discuss those issues in detail. When was the House asked to rise? Was it at 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning? No, it was asked to rise at 10 o'clock at night. Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any idea of why that was?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Government should take heed of that point. There is something a little more civilised about the hours that the Government have tried to introduce for the business of the House. However, it is neither civilised nor democratic if that restricts debate on matters of vital importance in such a way that legislation is not properly scrutinised.
At present, the Government have an enormous majority. Why do they not operate shift systems, like those that they should be instituting in the NHS? In a


shift system, even if people were working long and hard, they would not be engaged in the idiotic business of working through for 32 hours on the trot during the week, with no rest, and for 54 hours on the trot at weekends, with only four or five hours of continuous rest throughout that period. That is a scandal and it has to be stopped. I am sure that the Government can look to the full assistance of the Opposition in encouraging the right measures to ensure that it is stopped. We know that such measures exist. We need time to debate the matter. This guillotine should not be imposed.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him along the esoteric lines of his sudden involvement in the national health service. One thing that distinguishes Back-Bench Members from Front-Bench Members of the House is the enormous short-term memory loss that seems to be a condition of having been a member of any Government. Somehow, Members who have pushed through guillotine motions, during many hours and with great vigour, forget that fact instantly when they cross the Floor and find themselves on the Opposition Benches.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose

Mrs. Dunwoody: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants me to go into the question of doctors' hours, I can keep going on that subject for the next four hours with no difficulty whatever. I too have a consultant in my family, who makes precisely the point that, unless people get some general training, they are not as useful as they used to be.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I should be terribly thrilled to do so, but I think that I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, if the hon. Member for Lichfield will forgive me.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: May I take it that the hon. Lady believes that the points I have made are fair ones, or is she telling the House that such intolerably long hours, not only on call but continuously working, are a sensible form of training? I cannot believe the latter, but perhaps she will clarify her view.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to know that, in a long married life, most of it spent living in hospitals, I discovered that many doctors work extremely long hours and that some of them should not be allowed to work at all, which is an entirely different matter—but if he wants chapter and verse, I can supply them. As I said, I am delighted that he has suddenly discovered the problem of doctors' hours in the NHS, which has been known to some of us for the past 40 years.
If the House will forgive me, I should like to make a serious point. I have been a Member of Parliament long enough to know that all Governments, when faced with timetable problems, almost inevitably demand faster

movement of their legislation—that it should pass through both Houses at the speed they desire, preferably with no examination by anybody. Most Governments are fairly evenhanded; it is not that they do not want their own Back Benchers to examine legislation: they do not want anyone at all to look at it. So it is not new to me to find my colleagues—albeit the two members of the Cabinet for whom I have greatest affection, if I can say that without entirely wrecking their parliamentary careers—demanding greater speed and, indeed, a double guillotine.
However, it would be wrong to allow the guillotine to be passed without saying that I do not think it a very good idea. There are those who believe that, if every single piece of legislation that passes through the House is programmed, it will always be possible to issue statements at a time when the press will use them, the House will respond in a manner that keeps my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Whips Office happy, and life will be a garden filled with the most beautiful flowers. That is not my experience. The House of Commons and the other place operate best when their Members have the opportunity to take pieces of legislation and talk about them in detail.
That is not to say that scrutiny is done with malice aforethought. There are those of us who want to argue about legislation because we think that it is sometimes badly framed and that, sometimes, even if it is well framed, the implications have not been fully thought out. All Members of Parliament ought to have the right to express an opinion. I was therefore saddened—I put it no higher than that—to see that the Immigration and Asylum Bill had been included in the guillotine.
The simple reason for that feeling is that there are aspects of that Bill that still give me pause, even though the Home Secretary has been sensible enough and gracious enough to speak in some detail to his parliamentary colleagues. He knows that our concerns are genuine and that we still retain some of them. He also knows me well enough to know that I shall express my view with some vigour, whether in public or in private—not that he has been noticeably put off by that.
When we consider a guillotine motion, it is important to ask whether it is justified and whether it will produce the desired result, which is good legislation—not necessarily hasty legislation, but good legislation. Will it result in our having to return to the measure at some point in the future and apologise for having got something wrong, not because we meant to get it wrong, but because we did not have time to consider it properly and the people who would have raised questions did not have the time or opportunity to talk to others?
The Secretary of State for Health and the Home Secretary can both say, with considerable justification, that both Bills have spent a long time passing through the House; people have had the opportunity to consult, and that stage should be long behind us. However, in reality, all Governments table new clauses and amendments. Even though the current Government are way behind the previous one, not yet having reached the point of tabling 400 amendments on Third Reading—there is always hope—it is sad to see this guillotine being moved at this stage in respect of these Bills.
I know why the guillotine has been moved and I understand all the pressures, but I am not persuaded that it is the right way to proceed. The policies with which the


Bills deal are tremendously and fundamentally important because they affect the lives of people when they are at their most damaged and at their most vulnerable. The decisions we take will have an enormous impact, way beyond the number of people whom we currently believe might be adversely affected.
I do not want to say more. I think the House of Commons should be reminded occasionally that, even when it appears to be doing its best and to be at its most disciplined and most organised, and even when it responds with alacrity to the wishes of the Whips Office and the desires of Front Benchers on both sides—neither side changes: they both play the same games, some well and some badly—it needs to be watched closely. I am sorry, but I do not think this is a good idea. I did not think the guillotine was a good idea when the previous Government used it and I do not think it is a good idea now. I am extremely sorry that it has been applied to this legislation.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be brief, as I share the views eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). We are talking about extremely important legislation, and I shall use only a small amount of time that would otherwise be devoted to debating these measures. I will certainly not waste time in the way Conservative spokespeople have done this afternoon.
This debate is about the orderly management of parliamentary business. I make no bones about it: I think the guillotine should always be used as an absolute last resort. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said—

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I heard the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) say that Conservative spokespeople—only one of us has spoken in the debate—had wasted time this afternoon. Presumably, you would not have allowed me to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you believe that I wasted time this afternoon?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Lady had been wasting time, I would certainly have called her to order.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This debate is about the orderly management of our time. We must try to achieve the best scrutiny of the legislation that comes before the House. Anybody who attended, watched or listened to the debate last night would have been fully aware that it was not a good use of House of Commons time: it was not a careful assessment of the legislation before the House and it did not result in proper scrutiny.
Guillotine debates always have an element of play acting, and this afternoon is no exception. I know—as I am sure the House does—that Conservative Front Benchers were clearly manoeuvring last night in order to make a point. I do not blame the Opposition for that, but it should be obvious to all, inside and outside the House. The Conservatives sought to trigger precisely the sort of

motion that is now before us so that they could say that the Government had cut short the debate. The Government stand accused of making no attempt to avert that motion. They could have done so, if they had wished, by offering a programme motion.
I serve on the Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee, and we have experimented successfully with agreed programme motions involving all parties. I would like to extend that process further by ensuring that Back Benchers have some input. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich would like to have some input, and I believe that would be extremely helpful. No one can pretend that what occurred last night amounted to orderly management of the business of the House.
The Government did not offer a programme motion on the Health Bill. I understand that to be the fact. I am involved in these discussions to some extent, and the Government made no offer to programme the timing of that legislation. What sort of programme motion could we have regarding the Immigration and Asylum Bill? We do not know whether there will be punctuation marks during the debate to enable the articulation of all views in the House—particularly those of Government Back Benchers. No offer has been made to us and I understand that no detailed offer was made to the Conservatives. The Government stand accused of provoking this situation in order to smother the views of any remaining Labour rebels.
Both sides of the House have been play acting. Indeed, is this not some sort of pantomime? We have had contributions from Baron Belly Laugh and the Dame this afternoon, and I gather that later we shall see Jack the Beanstalk himself. Sadly, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not in his usual place. He usually takes the part of the wolf in Red Riding Hood and at this stage he would normally snarl, bear his fangs and make the point that all Conservative Governments used the guillotine far more often than do the present Government.
It is ridiculous that we have reached this point. It is a reflection on the way in which the House is managed, and the fact that we cannot manage it better is a reflection on us all. I hope that we can now get on with the real debate.

Sir Norman Fowler: We can take it that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is not a candidate for the Liberal Democrat leadership. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes, it is a shame. The hon. Gentleman appears to come from the bureaucratic tendency in the Liberal Democrats. He says that this debate is about the orderly management of business or time but it is not; it is about parliamentary democracy, and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was entirely right about that.
I shall be brief, and I speak as perhaps the most recent arrival on the Back Benches. I want to protest at the use of the guillotine. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who spoke from the Front Bench and whom I congratulate on her new position—she will be entirely excellent—pointed out that the guillotine deals with two Bills. I shall concentrate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill because I am most familiar with that.
Even if I accepted the Health Secretary's arguments, they have nothing to do with that Bill. By any standards, it is a most important Bill. It seeks to deal with questions relating to political asylum seekers, both genuine and bogus. Inevitably, the Bill is sensitive; it deals with issues of human rights and the rights of families and children. It arouses genuine and sincere differences of opinion.
That is not only my view, but that of the Home Secretary, because he made the Bill, exceptionally, subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure. I assume that his aim was to achieve the best possible legislation after detailed consideration. There is no point in having that system and using it unless that is the aim. Today, that policy is being reversed—that is the truth of what is being proposed. There is now no question of the Bill receiving the fullest examination. Its remaining stages were to be taken over two days, and they will now, at best, be taken in just over a day.
In that time, we shall be expected to consider amendments that deal with the treatment of over-stayers, the removal of asylum claimants, support for children and restrictions on employment. We shall be asked to deal with charges for passengers without proper documentation, bail hearings, victims of torture, detainees with children and a range of other matters, not to mention the Bill's Third Reading.
We shall be expected to deal, most crucially, with legions of new clauses and Government amendments. It is not Opposition Members but Home Office Ministers who have filled the Order Paper with amendments, and now they are guillotining the discussion of those amendments. That discussion is not the responsibility of the Opposition or of the Government's allies, the Liberal Democrats; it is absolutely the Government's responsibility.
In that time, we shall be expected to deal also with Opposition amendments. Even the Liberal Democrats have managed to muster the courage to table one or two amendments, and there are amendments in the name of Labour Back Benchers. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald suggested, there is no doubt that one reason for the Government's concern is an amendment tabled by Government Back Benchers.
This is a disgraceful way to treat the House. Although the Health Secretary has now left the Chamber, I must say that his arrogant speech did nothing for the Government's case. It was a disgraceful speech that would not have persuaded anyone who listened to it, and he should be ashamed of it.

Mr. John Bercow: Many hon. Members will agree with the sentiments that my right hon. Friend has just expressed. Does he believe that we should be told by the Secretary of State whether he authorised the Leader of the House last night to describe the new clauses that had been tabled to the Health Bill as "minor and technical"? Given that they cover a wide variety of matters that are of the essence of public debate about our national health service, does my right hon. Friend, as a highly experienced parliamentarian, believe that what we witnessed from the Leader of the House last night was the clearest illustration of the Executive's arrogance and contempt for the House of Commons?

Sir Norman Fowler: I do. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not go back into the national health

service. Having done the Health Secretary's job for an unprecedented six years, I shall not tiptoe back into that area for the time being. However, my hon. Friend's point is correct.
What the Government are doing is disgraceful also because it represents such a reversal of attitude on the part of Home Office Ministers. They started by saying that they wanted the closest examination of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. They were anxious to have our suggestions and proposals. Now, at the last stage, in they come with the proposal that discussion should be guillotined.
The guillotine of the Immigration and Asylum Bill has no justification. The Bill has been dealt with in an entirely sensible way, and the issues have been debated fully and sensibly. There is no question about that. On our side the Bill was handled outstandingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Any member of the Standing Committee would endorse that. I can say with certainty that in the two-day debate on the remaining stages of the Bill, the approach would have been exactly the same. We were not planning to filibuster it into the small hours of the morning. There was no question of our doing that.
There is absolutely no justification for the Government's guillotining the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Up to now, they have blamed the last Conservative Government for any faults in the political asylum and immigration system. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who has come into the Chamber—I was going to put it more emotively—has no other speech. I have been listening to him, regrettably, for a year. He has no other form of words.
From now on, the defects in the Bill and in the system belong to the Government and to that set of Ministers. They have entire responsibility for the workings of the legislation, discussion of which they have wrongly curtailed.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has considerably greater experience in the House than I have. Can he recall any precedent for a Government pursuing a double guillotine policy—using one Bill as an excuse for curtailing discussion of another, as the Government are trying to do?

Sir Norman Fowler: I cannot, but that is not conclusive. Every Minister on the Front Bench has been looking over the procedures and the debates of the past 25 years to find such a precedent. Knowing the Government back-up, I think that there may well be a precedent, although I have never come across one.
I have also never come across a Government who begin with the Special Standing Committee procedure and then decide, halfway through, to guillotine the Bill. Of that there is no question. I can think of no such precedent, but doubtless the ministerial advisers will scuttle off to find one for us.
The issues go beyond that. Over the past two years the Government have been talking about modernising Parliament, although I do not always agree with the ideas that they put forward for modernisation. They keep talking about their commitment to open government and how they want to achieve the maximum accountability of


Parliament and Ministers to the public. They are entirely right to have those aspirations, because parliamentary democracy and political accountability are vital issues; in my view, none are more important.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and think that we would take the same stance on that issue, but there is no point in the Government using the language of parliamentary democracy and then behaving in this way, which is the opposite of parliamentary democracy. Week after week, they have made statements outside the House of Commons that should have been made inside it, and we all remember the statement on jury trials. They relegate Parliament by acting in such a way and, by tabling the guillotine motion, they have further devalued the parliamentary process. That is the essential charge against this bunch of Ministers and this Government.
There is no point in the Home Secretary coming to the House to talk about freedom of information only a few weeks after imposing an injunction on the whole of the British media. Equally, there is no point in the Government talking about modernising Parliament and increasing accountability when they have imposed a guillotine such as this. The guillotine is unjustified and an arrogant abuse of power, and such autocratic action will eventually destroy the Government's credibility.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I shall be extremely brief because, unlike Conservative Members, I want to discuss health. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) gave the game away when he said that the Opposition had no intention of filibustering the Immigration and Asylum Bill into the early hours of the morning. The truth is that that was precisely their intention for the Health Bill.
Yesterday, I sat through three hours of discussion on the opening group of amendments and I can say that the Opposition gave a completely new meaning to making a mountain out of a molehill—and it was an uncontroversial molehill at that. We heard repetition, exaggeration and ridiculous comments from Opposition Members. I made a brief intervention and it was referred to time and again—and, indeed, misrepresented. It was absolutely clear what Conservative Members were doing.

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Chisholm: I will not take interventions, because my speech will be very brief. I want to get on to the health debate.
I said yesterday—I was not making a general point about this Parliament in relation to the Scottish Parliament, although some people took it in that way—that we were witnessing self-indulgent time wasting. That was absolutely true. The Government's mantra is rights with responsibilities, and that is entirely wise. If we are protecting the rights of Back Benchers—normally, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—we also have a responsibility to debate matters in a relevant and responsible way. That did not happen in the debate on the Health Bill yesterday.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said that he would speak briefly, and he did, but he made it clear that his reaction to a difference of opinion in the House and to a desire to debate an issue is, unsurprisingly, a knee-jerk reaction. He wants debate closed down.
What a pleasure it is to be the speaker from the Conservative Benches who follows my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is fresh from the Front Bench. I recall him expressing to me many years ago, when he was responsible for health matters, an ambition to involve himself in home affairs. He had been a home affairs correspondent of The Times, and he has had that opportunity. I am sure that the whole House wishes him and his family well now that they will be spending more time with each other.
I want to discuss the motion as it applies to the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I shall not comment on its application to the Health Bill, other than to say that the Secretary of State for Health seemed to depart from his normally cheerful demeanour, and to protest too much. Indeed, there was the merest hint of arrogance in what he had to say, which was disappointing.
Having heard your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to stick to the subject of the motion. As I was travelling with an all-party group on the day of the Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, I shall resist the temptation to wade into other aspects of the Bill. Let me say, however, that this is a bad use of the guillotine, and that the Government have no serious justification for its introduction.
As both the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said earlier, all Governments use guillotines from time to time. The Leader of the House, fronting for the business managers, will say sagely that there is pressure on parliamentary time owing to the heavy legislative programme; but there is no reason for a House of Commons that does not discuss Government business on Fridays, and takes two-week spring recesses, suddenly to say solemnly that there is no time for it to debate a subject as important as this, and that we must press on. That is a bit of a joke.
As far as I can see, having followed its progress one stage removed, there has been no time-wasting on the Bill. As far as I know, no timetable motion was openly contemplated in the House last week. What happened yesterday resulted from the Government's pique about their disastrous showing in the European elections—coupled, I dare say, with a bit of good-natured teasing from the Opposition—and the Government's undoubted petulance about the extended debate on a single amendment to the Health Bill. It had nothing whatever to do with the Immigration and Asylum Bill. It is necessary to look further, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald did precisely that.
The Government were clearly sufficiently bothered by the very public setback that they had suffered from so many of their Back Benchers in regard to social security reforms that they did not want to allow time for another embarrassing ambush that could add to the concessions


already made by the Home Secretary. The timetable motion is really all about controlling the Government's own Back Benchers.

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend referred to the Government's poor showing in the European elections. Does he agree that, once again, the Government are missing the point that the electorate tried to convey to them? I am talking not about just European policy, but about the Government's arrogance and contempt for parliamentary debate. It is partly because our population is so sick of a Government who will not listen and will not debate that they had that poor showing.

Mr. Wardle: I entirely agree, although I think that I would soon be in trouble with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I expanded on my hon. Friend's second point.
Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend said about the recent European elections, I feel that the constraint on debating time is ill judged. There is widespread public concern about the way in which immigration and asylum are spiralling out of control. The queues are becoming longer, and there are more illegal immigrants. Ordinary, fair-minded British people who are proud of the welcome that they extend to foreigners—people of all political persuasions—are understandably bothered by the drain on benefits, school places, health facilities and housing.
Many of those people—this is why the debate should be allowed an adequate airing on the Floor of the House—consider the root cause of the difficulties to be the Government's willingness to bend our immigration rules and modify our immigration controls at the behest of the European Union. A number of the illegal immigrants who have come here recently have come from eastern Europe, but a great many—wherever they have come from originally—have travelled through the European Union. That public concern was part of the reason for the voting pattern throughout the country in Labour's strongholds, as well as in Conservative strongholds, last Thursday, so it is unfair and unwise of the Government to curb debate on the Bill when it is on the Floor of the House.
I do not dispute that the Bill was closely examined in Committee. I am sure that it was right of the Home Secretary to press for a Special Standing Committee and to take expert advice, but the Secretary of State for Health was wrong to say, "Therefore, there is no need for the debate to continue on the Floor of the House." There were a limited number of right hon. and hon. Members on that Committee. Many others of us have something to say. There is not a person here who does not know that, apart from those experts, experienced witnesses and a few specialist reporters, the Committee stage hardly touched public awareness. That is all the more reason to have adequate time on Report.
Three particular aspects of the Bill will suffer from the lack of sufficient time on Report and Third Reading. First, the Bill needs to be challenged further because it is long on theory and short on practical detail. I know that that came out in Committee, but the Bill leaves much to be done by delegated legislation, subject to negative resolution. Those things should be challenged openly on the Floor of the House, where they can be heard.
My second concern was voiced by the Immigration Service Union, which said that the Bill opened the gate to softer, European-style controls. I give two examples.

One is that leave to enter with a visa will not be challengeable by an immigration officer. Not so many years ago, I saw countless immigration cases. There were often instances of the immigration officer looking at a perfectly valid visa and, after a few questions, discovering that circumstances had changed, or, indeed, that the visa had passed to someone else.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the point that he is making is not correct?

Mr. Wardle: I am grateful for that intervention, but I am sure that the Home Secretary, who has been positively delphic on that point, will agree that, over the years, there have been many cases of immigration officers discovering that there were reasons why someone should not, after all, be given leave to enter, even if he had a visa and prior entry clearance. If the Home Secretary is saying that, at the Committee stage, the ISU has been heeded and the matter has been taken on board, that is all well and good—it is all the more reason why it should be debated on the Floor of the House.
Similarly, if we should reach the stage—I am certainly not going to accuse the Home Secretary of wishing to get there himself in the immediate future—that was presaged by article 100c of the Maastricht treaty, which was before his time, when a standard visa format throughout the European Union was proposed whereby the suggestion could be made and adopted in the European Union that those European visas would be sufficient to ensure leave to enter this country, our immigration controls would be blown to pieces.
The third and final reason why time is needed for the debate is to focus still further, as the Committee has, on asylum problems, particularly concentrating on the twin pillars of the Geneva convention—the well-founded fear of persecution and the fact that a person can seek asylum only in the first safe country he reaches. That should be debated here, along with the fact of the queue, which, the Home Secretary must allow, has not gone away.
For all those reasons, it is iniquitous that a timetable motion has been slapped on the Bill and that there will not now be adequate time for a full and reasoned debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). He was a little hard on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) who, even though he made only a short contribution to the debate yesterday, was the only Labour Back Bencher to make any contribution. Also, given that the first group of amendments was germane to the Scottish borders, it is worth pointing out that he was the only Scottish Member who bothered to make a contribution. At least he deserves some credit for having turned up.
I find it offensive and wrong for the Government to suggest that our proper debate of the Health Bill yesterday was, in any way, time wasting. If Labour Members, who have a responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents, particularly those north of the border, could not be bothered to turn up to register their concerns and


the views and interests of their constituents, there was all the more reason for Conservative Members to ensure that the new clauses, which had only just appeared, should be scrutinised and debated.
I no longer see the Minister of State in his place—he was here earlier. During his introductory remarks on new clause 18, his subsequent interventions and his reply to the debate he was unable to give the vital detail on which the Chamber should arrive at a judgment about the new clause. It was clear that it had been thought up late in the process and that little consideration had been given to it. It was tabled with minimal notice to hon. Members and, even the Minister did not realise its full implications.
In those circumstances, it is utterly astonishing that, after just a few short hours of debate yesterday, the Leader of the House should suggest that a vital piece of legislation, dealing with the national health service, could not be debated in proper detail because, apparently, a short debate had taken place on one or two new clauses which had only just been made available to hon. Members to express a view.

Mr. Fabricant: Was not it ironic that new clause 18, on which we spent a long time, was a Government new clause, tabled at the very last moment? If the Government were so concerned about saving time, why did they not table the new clause in Committee?

Mr. Brady: I could not agree more. My hon. Friend, who spoke yesterday and did his duty as a Member of the House to try to scrutinise a piece of ill-considered legislation, is right to point out that it was a Government new clause. It was introduced late in the day and took up time which would otherwise have been available to debate other elements of the Bill. It is utterly outrageous. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in a moment.

Fiona Mactaggart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brady: I thought that the hon. Lady wanted to intervene. No doubt she would have been in trouble with her Whips Office had she done so. [Interruption.] I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you did not hear as well as I did what was uttered as the hon. Lady left the Chamber.
It is unacceptable for right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Front Bench to suggest that it was wrong for Conservative Members who did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee to devote their time and resources to scrutinising the legislation. It is doubly disappointing that those of us who were not on the Committee and who, quite properly, participated on Report—as hon. Members are entitled and have a responsibility to do—should be criticised for such participation.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend recalls accurately the proceedings of yesterday evening. Does he recall that, during consideration of new clause 18, the Minister of State gave no impression that he had even seen or studied the new clause let alone digested its contents before coming to the Chamber? Does my hon. Friend accept that, as a naturally charitable individual, as he and I pressed

the Minister to explain the rationale for and content of the new clause, the analogy of cruelty to dumb animals sprung to mind?

Mr. Brady: I shall not be drawn by my hon. Friend.
Had the Secretary of State taken the trouble to attend the Chamber yesterday and witnessed the performance of the Minister of State who, as my hon. Friend rightly points out, did not appear to be acquainted with the new clause and still less with its implications or detail, he might have taken a different view from the rather facile opinions he so arrogantly expressed earlier. Had the Leader of the House been present to see that those on the Government Front Bench advanced no meaningful argument and that Government Back Benchers, in their typical fashion, said virtually nothing, the Government might not persist in the ludicrous assertion of time wasting. Some hon. Members take seriously their responsibility to scrutinise and debate legislation.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend interested to know that during the entire course of the Committee stage only one Government Back Bencher made a speech—and then only briefly? Not one of the other Government Back Benchers made a contribution.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman said that a moment ago.

Mr. Fabricant: No. I said nothing about the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman was not listening.

Mr. Brady: That is an important point. My experience of Standing Committees is almost invariably the same. There is no real effort made by Labour Members to scrutinise legislation introduced by their Government so it comes as no great surprise to find that they should make similarly little effort to do the job for which they were sent here by their constituents during proceedings on the Health Bill.
It is bad enough to find that there was little scrutiny by Labour Members in Committee, that new clauses are being introduced by the Government and that there is no effort by Labour Members to scrutinise them on Report, but it is utterly unacceptable for Labour Members, particularly the Secretary of State for Health, who should know better, to criticise Opposition Members for doing what we have been sent here to do. We are exercising our right to scrutinise ill-judged legislation that has been introduced without thought.
I was delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) demonstrating how seriously he takes his responsibilities so soon after joining us on the Back Benches. Far from seeing it as an opportunity to put his feet up, he was immediately bringing the benefit of his experience and beliefs to the Chamber. It is a bit rich for the Secretary of State for Health to laugh at the record of my right hon. Friend given that he did not even bother to turn up for the scrutiny of his own Bill. Much as he may chunter from a sedentary position, he has done himself no credit by his performance yesterday in claiming that there were more important things for him to do—he has not enlightened us as to what they may have been—or in his brief contribution today when all he could do was attack hon. Members who do


their duty. He did not list the constituencies of Labour Members who did not bother to represent their constituents in the Scottish border area. Those constituents may have had some concerns about the implications of new clause 18 for expenditure on health services for Scottish taxpayers.
Although those Labour Members were not here for last night's debate, the Secretary of State thinks that it is shameful that Opposition Members should be trying to do their job. He does not think that it is shameful that some of the silent bodies sitting behind him have failed to examine the detail of the Health Bill.

Mr. Dobson: Why did the Opposition not divide on new clause 18?

Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State seems to think that he has hit on a clever point—perhaps for the first time—in suggesting that, if the Opposition do not press an amendment to a Division, it should not be debated. He clearly fails to understand that Governments can benefit from proper scrutiny of their own amendments, even if there is not a Division on those amendments. He fails to understand that point because he does not understand the purpose of Parliament and of parliamentary debate.

Mr. Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Has he noted that some of the Government amendments on today's selection list were tabled as a consequence of debate and discussion in Committee?

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is a relief to know that the Secretary of State is prepared, occasionally, to listen to good sense. He has not often been willing to do that, and he is certainly not prepared to do so today. The crux of the matter is that he is not prepared to give the House time properly to scrutinise new legislation and Government new clauses, which have not been thought through by Health Ministers and have not yet been properly scrutinised by the House.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is an irony in the situation? If we had pressed new clause 18 to a Division, the Secretary of State would have accused the Opposition of wasting time. He would have said, "We had such a large parliamentary majority that we were bound to win; therefore, for 20 minutes, we wasted time on a Division." He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend is almost certainly right. The Government's belief that the parliamentary process is an inconvenience for the nation, rather than an asset, is another illustration of their arrogance.
As I said in last night's debate—I now echo the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for whom I have the greatest respect—if Ministers had understood that they could gain from proper scrutiny in the House, they would not have even contemplated proposing this type of guillotine. Ministers

are refusing to listen to debate, to the views of Opposition Members, or—perhaps just as ba—to the views of Labour Members.

Ms Diane Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brady: The hon. Lady is an honourable exception, and I shall give way to her.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is new to the House. If he were not new, and had been in the House during the 18 years of Tory Government, he would not be so quick to hurl accusations of Government arrogance or about the failure of Government Back Benchers to subject legislation to proper scrutiny. Although I cannot speak for my colleagues, or about other Bills, in Committee, I subjected the Immigration and Asylum Bill to the most energetic scrutiny. I am now anxious to get on and to debate the two Bills, and regret that Opposition Members are wasting time on debating the guillotine.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I trust that, as she wants to have proper time to debate the Immigration and Asylum Bill, she will vote against the guillotine. In the same way as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested that it was wrong to oppose the guillotine motion, as he wanted to have time to debate the Bill's substantive matter, the hon. Lady is making an illogical assertion. If she wants proper time to debate the Immigration and Asylum Bill—just as I should like proper time to debate the Health Bill—she should oppose the guillotine.
Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield was cautious in replying to my intervention on the point, he said that, in his experience, it is unprecedented to attempt to guillotine debate on a Bill by using an excuse that is entirely unconnected with that legislation. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) should oppose the guillotine particularly for that reason. Attempting to impose such a guillotine is a serious travesty of the House's rules of procedure, and is an attempt to undermine proper debate in the House and our ability to scrutinise legislation. The Government's attempt is utterly transparent, and they should be ashamed of themselves for even contemplating trying to stifle debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill by using such a device, which is utterly wrong.
Last night, if Ministers had said that they wished to timetable debate on the Health Bill, we might have been able to debate the matter. They could have said, "We have reasons for imposing a guillotine", and we could have said, "No, you're wrong to propose imposing one." The Opposition might have been able to object to timetabling the Health Bill by saying that we needed more time to debate the more than 20 groups of amendments that have not been debated. If Ministers had done so, it would have become apparent to everyone that the Government were trying to stifle debate on the Health Bill.
The Government have, however, gone one step beyond that, by saying that yesterday's imagined slow progress in debating Government amendments to the Health Bill—which were tabled with very little notice—justifies stifling debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is a Home Office matter. Such an assertion is staggering.
The Government's attempt to use a double guillotine has nothing at all to do with the Health Bill. Ministers are simply trying to limit the inconvenience and embarrassment that they would suffer if some of their own Back Benchers—the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington may be among them—were able to express their convictions about Government legislation to which they objected. All Governments should occasionally face embarrassment. That is why the United Kingdom has an open democratic process which enables the House to debate such matters. It is also why Government Back Benchers are able to express their views, if they have the courage to do so. The Government's attempt to stop that process is not only an abuse of parliamentary debate and of the House's rights and responsibilities, but utterly transparent.
It is staggering that the Government should seek to curtail debate in such a manner. It simply demonstrates the Government's massive abdication of responsibility. Ministers should welcome proper scrutiny and debate of the matters dealt with in the Bills. However, perhaps even more worrying than the Government's abdication of their own responsibility is their failure to allow the Opposition to do what the Opposition should do: ensure that the groups of amendments to the Health Bill—which take up almost two pages in the provisional selection of amendments—are properly debated.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) mentioned the significant matter of doctors' hours. However, the Secretary of State suggested that it was not possible to find time to debate that important subject in the House. The subject is not only important to doctors—who are being forced to work unreasonably long hours—but is a matter of the gravest concern to the entire population of the United Kingdom. On admission to hospital, members of the public may discover that they are being treated by a doctor who, although he or she may have the highest professional standards, has been awake for countless hours, staggering—as my right hon. and learned Friend said—through the night.
The rich irony, which will not be lost on the medical profession or on members of the public who observe our debates, is that the plight of doctors—who might be expected to work not only until 10 o'clock at night or midnight, but throughout the night and the next day—could not be properly aired in debate on the Bill's relevant clauses because Labour Members were not prepared to provide time to debate those clauses or to work beyond 10 o'clock.
It is deeply disturbing that the Secretary of State for Health and other Labour Members—who, when in opposition, always sought to take enormous party political advantage from the national health service—are now manifestly failing in their stewardship and management of the health service. In the past, Labour Members sought to gain party advantage by making huge play of issues such as junior doctors' hours, yet they now want longer working hours to be permitted in Europe. It is pathetic that the Government do not have the courage to allow a proper debate on that and I have nothing but contempt for their approach.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend as interested as I am in noticing that, while all the Conservative members of

the Committee are present, not one Labour member of the Committee, apart from the Front Benchers, has bothered to turn up? [HON. MEMBERS: "There's one."] I see that the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) has now appeared. Well done to her. Let her name go down in the record. I presume that they chose to serve on the Committee to scrutinise the Bill. Why have they not chosen to scrutinise the guillotine motion or the two pages of amendments that are before us on Report?

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) made herself known so that she at least could gain credit.

Mr. Paul Truswell: May I also correct the observations of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)? I, too, was a member of the Standing Committee. Would the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) like to comment on the accuracy of his hon. Friend's observations? I hope that such accuracy does not characterise the rest of his contributions to the debate.

Mr. Brady: If Labour Members failed to make any impression in Committee, I can hardly blame my hon. Friend for not having noticed whether they were there, or indeed whether they are here this evening. At least two Labour members of the Committee have brought themselves to the Chamber this evening. I see that the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) is also claiming credit for being present, but he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary and has doubtless been asked to sit there for particular reasons.
It is important that Labour Members take their responsibilities as Members of Parliament seriously. If only two of the 14 or 15 Labour Back Benchers who were members of the Committee are able to bring themselves to the Chamber this evening—they were not here yesterday evening for the substantive debate on the Bill—that is a poor performance.
I had hoped to be able to speak yesterday evening on the amendments dealing with rationing of health care, particularly because several constituents have raised concerns with me on that. Yesterday alone I had three letters expressing concerns that I had hoped to have time to raise during consideration in the Chamber. One was about the proposed closure of two of the three wards at Altrincham general hospital and another was from someone who had voted Labour all his life but wrote to say how much he regretted his decision because he felt so profoundly let down by the performance of the Secretary of State for Health.
If the Government persist in denying debate, closing their ears to what is going on around them and ignoring the real concerns of Members of Parliament—concerns that are reflected in the country, which is losing all faith in the ability of Labour Ministers to manage the national health service—they will pay the price. Only if they are prepared to listen to the concerns that my constituents wanted me to raise in the debate will the Government avoid making foolish mistakes and letting down their constituents and mine while they have the stewardship of the country.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that I was a relatively new Member of Parliament. That is true and I do not for a moment deny


that when my party was in government it sought to guillotine business on many occasions. Some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), have distinguished records of opposing such motions regardless of who was seeking to manage the time of the House inappropriately. Labour Members may wish to give some consideration to my observation that one reason why the public became rather sick of the Conservative Government towards the end of our 18 years was a perception that we were arrogant and not prepared to listen. There was a feeling that we would push policies through regardless of concerns. Staggeringly, in just two years the Labour Government have scaled giddy heights of arrogance and contempt for the public and Parliament that I do not believe that the Conservative Government ever reached. If the Government do not understand what they are doing and do not pay heed to my warning, they will pay the price.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has given us the most eloquent expression of what we understand by representative democracy and a parliamentary system. Ours is a system of debate. Governments put propositions to the House, seeking legislative rights. We test those propositions. That backwards and forwards process has been at the heart of our democratic system for more than 100 years.
I well remember the rage and anger of Labour Members when they were in opposition as it became clear to them that the guillotine had become a central feature of the Executive's control of the House. I do not mean to be dismissive of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), but she has been muttering and angrily expressing derision at the fact that we have been debating the guillotine motion for an hour and three quarters. The debate is scheduled to go on for three hours.

Fiona Mactaggart: My anger is not about the fact that we are debating the motion, but about the quality of the debate and the way in which some hon. Members have chosen to contribute, which has, in most cases, been highly hypocritical. I exempt the hon. Gentleman from that criticism.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady is very gracious. In the years that I have been here I have learned that it is not appropriate for me to judge the quality of another's speech. Some of us are more inarticulate than others. It is the genuineness that rings through what hon. Members say that affects and informs our judgments. I would be hesitant to question the quality of another's speech.
The indignation of the then Labour Opposition against the device of the guillotine seemed true and palpable. We know that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke with a true voice, because she has repeated from the Government Benches what she said in opposition. All the raging in past Parliaments of those who now adorn the Government Front Bench, arguing and fighting against the imposition of a guillotine, which is the curtailment of freedom of speech and of the representative right to express a view, comes to nought in the end. That is the cynicism of our parliamentary processes.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) flitted in for two minutes to tell us that the debate was a waste of her opportunity to debate the substantive issues in the Bills. Everyone knows that the Opposition are not imposing a guillotine, but the hon. Lady will vote for the imposition of a restriction on the opportunity to speak.
That is the cynicism that informs this debate. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health know in their hearts the futility of their position, given that they presented themselves to the electorate as new Labour with new politics and said that the old ways would not prevail: they would be part of the regeneration of British politics and British parliamentary democracy. We now know that to be a foo-fa; it is nonsense. This is now a repetitive process.
There is no question but that the motion is odious. The Secretary of State tried to argue for a guillotine on the Health Bill but the Government have tried to take away time from a proper guillotine consideration by including another Bill. If we address the two guillotine motions equally, instead of the traditional entitlement of the House, as set out in Standing Orders, to discuss a guillotine motion for three hours, we effectively have only an hour and a half for each.
These are the new developments of procedure. The Government are not entirely responsible for twin measures on a guillotine motion, but they are responsible for a total curtailment of debate, so that the five hours on the Health Bill are really only two hours. The Labour party seems quite happy with that. The implications reverberate slowly, trickling through to a wider public who see the sheer cynicism of a Government who profoundly believe that a soundbite is of itself legislation, which it is not.
Every hon. Member who has been here for more than one Parliament knows that the grind of parliamentary business is an attempt to examine some—we do not go through everything line by line or word by word—of the principles that are expressed, for good government, by all Governments through their legislative programmes.
The motion says:
Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Health Bill [Lords] shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.
That is not a happy thought—two hours are what the Government think sufficient to dispose of this business.
I find that incredible, as Madam Speaker has made a provisional selection of 22 groups of amendments even before we get to Third Reading; but let us do away with Third Reading. Why not? After all, the Government have expressed their view on the matter and there are now enough unrepresentative Labour representatives to close their ears and eyes and support this proceeding. They may genuinely believe in all the details of the legislation, but they support the proceeding that prevents the Opposition—any Opposition—from discussing the matter.
Without a Third Reading, we would have an average of five and a half minutes on each group of amendments. Madam Speaker took the trouble to give subject titles to the groups. The first is
Clinical freedom and restrictions on prescribing",


which is the resumed debate on new clauses 4, 14, 16 and 17. The issues are great and weighty.
The next group is entitled:
Discrimination in the NHS on grounds of disability, race, sex etc.
That is important to many hon. Members and to many of our constituents and workers in the NHS. New clause 7 and amendments Nos. 78, 83, 80, 172, 81, 79 and 82 are all to be disposed of—if we average the time available—in five and a half minutes.

Mr. Chisholm: If the Opposition think the amendments so important, why did they sabotage debate on them yesterday, and why are they sabotaging debate on them today?

Mr. Shepherd: I will continue, if I may.
The second group is set aside in that short time. Were he to take the debate himself, the Secretary of State would barely have time to enunciate the new clause and the amendments and the Opposition would barely have time to respond to his enunciation. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who made a remarkable speech, would not even get a look-in, because the two Front Benchers, excluding every other hon. Member, would have disposed of the matter in five and a half minutes.

Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because the new clauses about which he feels so strongly were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, so we would have had the opportunity to speak, in the very short time that he and his colleagues left us for debate, and he will have done himself out of that opportunity by speaking at such length against the guillotine.

Mr. Shepherd: I am not doing anyone out of any time in speaking to the motion. I am not the originator of this ferocious guillotine. I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman, who is a very new Member, will vote for the motion.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall said that he would like a timetable. I have reflected on timetables for a long time. Where was the balance of the argument in the poll tax legislation? As the Bill developed, we began to see how unworkable it was. It started by asking why a dustman should pay less than a duke but eventually transferred its principle to asking why everyone should not pay something. How, in embarking on a large Bill, can one know where the weight of the argument will develop?

Dr. Howard Stoate: The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that the motion has to be debated for three hours, but does he not understand that the sooner we finish with the motion, the longer we will have available, within the five hours, to debate the substantive amendments on the Health Bill, which I agree entirely are extremely important to the House?

Mr. Shepherd: I am not responsible for the guillotine motion. The question is better directed to the Secretary of State for Health, the Home Secretary and the Leader

of the House; they tabled the motion. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman voting against the motion, which of course he will not do.
The third title is
Health care and energy efficiency schemes".
It concerns new clause 8, which is a Government new clause. We have five and a half minutes on that.

Mr. Dobson: It is a Liberal Democrat new clause.

Mr. Shepherd: If the Secretary of State can explain the distinction to the wider world, we will be grateful.
The next group is entitled,
Manpower planning in the NHS and protection of professional qualifications".
That is clearly too trivial a matter to detain the House on Report. The group consists of new clauses 9 and 19 and amendments Nos. 1 and 129.
Then we move on to the group of amendments on the
right to second opinion on diagnosis or treatment".
It contains new clauses 11 and 12. That is what the Government wish to condense into 60 minutes, twice over. The next group is entitled:
Health and safety of NHS doctors (maximum hours of work, etc.)".
It contains new clauses 13 and 28, plus amendment No. 180. It will be dispensed with in five and a half minutes, if the Government have their way.
The next group is entitled:
Duty of confidentiality (patients under 18)".
It contains new clause 20. No constituent who has come to my surgery to express concern on either side of the argument has been able to condense the most minimal approach to that question into five and a half minutes. Indeed, it has often taken more than an hour.
The next group deals with "Waiting times". My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) mentioned that issue, as did the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. It is crucial and important to the well-being of what for many of us is perhaps the most important expression of the state in the social circumstances of our life. It too will get five and a half minutes.
The next group is entitled:
Regulation of independent hospitals"—
and it contains new clause 22 and amendment No. 114. It will get only five and a half minutes. The following group is entitled:
Abolition of fund-holding and power to withdraw from Primary Care Trusts".
It contains new clause 23 and amendments Nos. 107, 108, 143 and 144. It will be dealt with in only five and a half minutes.
The next group is entitled:
Duty to promote partnership with private sector".
That is something on which the Government are keen. Many of us share the Government's objectives and others are cautious about them, but the subject will get only an average time of five and half minutes.
The next group is entitled:
Establishment of Primary Care Trusts (consultation etc.)".


It would almost take me five and a half minutes just to read out the amendments in the group, but they will have to be disposed of in that time. The group contains amendments Nos. 109, 111, 112, 181, 110 and 113, and Government amendments Nos. 53 and 54. Not content with the savage truncation of the debate of a free and representative Parliament, the Government believe that the next group of amendments, entitled
Primary Care Trusts (provision of services)",
can be dispatched in five and a half minutes.
Then we come to the group entitled "Drafting and miscellaneous". We know that our liberties are often in the detail and the devil is certainly in the detail. The Government will argue that the amendments in this group are technical, but each one will require clarification. The group contains Government amendments Nos. 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 37, 39, 105, 44, 45, 48, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, and 74.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that if my calculations are correct, that would allow just under 7 seconds to debate each amendment?

Mr. Shepherd: I am bemused that my hon. Friend has taken the trouble to notice the nonsense that the Government have placed on the Order Paper, no doubt to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Slough.
Next we would come to the group entitled
Remuneration for Part II services".
It contains Government amendments Nos. 13 and 14, amendment No. 128, and Government amendments Nos. 15, 16, 40, 41, 42, 43, 56, 67, 69, 71, 75 and 76. Will we have adequate time? The Government have still more business to discharge through our process in this forum. The group entitled "Local Representative Committees" contains amendment No. 115, Government amendments Nos. 94, 95, 96, amendments Nos. 116 and 117, Government amendments Nos. 97, 98, 99, amendment No. 118, Government amendments Nos. 100 and 101, amendment No. 119, Government amendment No. 102, amendment No. 120, and Government amendments Nos. 103 and 104. None of this will be treated seriously by a wider public if all that business is thrown through in 120 minutes, excluding a debate on Third Reading.
We have not yet finished. The next group is entitled:
Health Improvement Plans for London".
The Secretary of State for Health is an elected representative for a London constituency. The group contains amendments Nos. 4 and 3, but perhaps they do not merit discussion. The next group is entitled "Joint Consultative Committees" and it contains amendments Nos. 138 and 142. The next group is called "Pharmaceutical Price Controls". Some of these are big issues, as the House knows. The amendments are not frivolous: they are important. However, the Government feel that Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24, amendments Nos. 93, 178 and 92, Government amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, amendment No. 179 and Government amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38 can be disposed of in minutes.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not the hon. Gentleman illustrating a serious point that is not related to the guillotine? It is

the practice that has grown up under both Governments—I have been in the Chair and watched hundreds of Government amendments being moved by Ministers in the previous Government—of producing legislation that has to be updated by the Government. Is not that a sign that our parliamentary draftsmen have some homework to do before we can desist?

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady is right and her experience as a Chairman on the Speaker's Panel, and her long years of service in the House, underline the great urgency with which legislative ideas are often thrown together and presented to the House, giving rise to the need for subsequent amendment to make them workable or even slightly comprehensible to the lay reader. The legislation is no longer meant for the lay reader and it is beyond the reach of ordinary citizens to understand what the Government intend.
The next group of amendments is entitled:
Regulation of ancillary health professions".
It contains amendments Nos. 145, 167, 77, 169, 6, 162, 163, 164, 91 and 165. The next group is called "Devolution issues (Scotland)". We are fortunate in having the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) present. No doubt he would wish to contribute vigorously to the debate on amendments Nos. 183, 184 and 168, Government amendment No. 49 and amendment No. 185, because they touch on Scotland.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend realise that if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith wished to contribute to the debate on that group of amendments, he would have only 63 seconds per amendment?

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We would come next to the group entitled "Devolution issues (Wales)". I have cast my eye round the Chamber and I cannot see a Welsh Member, except for a Whip.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), is here.

Mr. Shepherd: My apologies. No doubt the Under-Secretary would move Government amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
So much for the Speaker's selection of amendments that the motion would require us to dispose of in two hours. A debate on Third Reading is also required, of course.

Mr. Tyler: I have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said, and with the comments of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). However, given that calculations are being made, will he say how many amendments we could have discussed in the 25 minutes during which he has addressed the House?

Mr. Shepherd: I had always thought that Cornishmen were canny and could understand the thrust of an argument. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not responsible for the guillotine motion but that I am endeavouring to criticise it. I do not know how I can put


it more plainly, so that the hon. Gentleman can understand that we are in this dire position because the Government wish to truncate debate to two hours.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall knows that Standing Orders set out the regime for guillotines, and they allocate three hours for debate on such motions. However, the Government want to blackmail—if I may use such unparliamentary language—the House into shutting up and forgetting its responsibilities as a representative institution. That is not acceptable to some of us. I know how easily a great majority can change Standing Orders, but until that happens we will remain unable to debate a guillotine motion for longer.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend mentioned the Speaker's selection, with which members of the public may not be familiar. Will he confirm that the amendments included in that selection are deemed to be relevant and important, either because they have not been debated in Committee or because they are new?

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend: that is indeed the rationale behind the selection.
So far, we have debated only the first part of the guillotine motion. The second part states:
Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second allotted day.
That is less grand that it sounds: two full parliamentary days seems a long time, but they begin immediately after the conclusion of this debate.
I was generous in calculating that an average of five and a half minutes would be available for debate on each group of amendments. Hon. Members are entitled to express dissent if they so judge, so each of the 82 amendments and new clauses, not all of which are technical, could be voted on. That would be a grim prospect, as it would take up all the time available for debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
There is also a Speaker's selection of amendments and new clauses for the Immigration and Asylum Bill, a measure that is very sensitive for many hon. Members, as it deals with the treatment of human beings in distress. I know that Labour Members are exercised about that. Their party's historical role has been to represent the fears of the oppressed and to understand the needs of people in the most dire of circumstances. It has done that more sensitively than any other party.
Conservative Members are not naive and know that many of the proposals in the Bill test the patience and sympathy of a wide section of the British public. I would not want to have to judge between asylum applications that are genuine and those that are fabricated. The Labour party's heritage is its history as a guardian of safety for the waves of people who came to this country to escape, for example, the pogroms in eastern Europe and Russia at the turn of the century. The Labour party has welcomed them: to its shame, the Conservative party has been less sensitive to people's circumstances and less aware of what

they could contribute here. Many immigrants have become an essential ingredient in this country's greatness. We have been the beneficiaries of immigration.
The Government have pulled out some bottom-drawer proposals first put forward by a previous Government. However, I respect the need of many Labour Members and those of my colleagues who are fair minded and who want to examine some of the contentions on which the Bill is based. If the responses on Report were not satisfactory, those hon. Members would want to say, on Third Reading, why they consider that the Bill did not deserve to be "read the Third time". The essence of parliamentary democracy is that hon. Members should be able to reject proposals if they judge that necessary.
How have the Government addressed that tradition? The Speaker's selection groups amendments and new clauses according to their effect on the Bill. Those groups concern the treatment of certain over-stayers, the removal of asylum claimants, facilitation of entry, European Economic Area nationals, and support for children—which all hon. Members know is a sensitive matter. The selection also covers restrictions on employment, general support arrangements for asylum seekers and miscellaneous and consequential amendments.
This latter category includes Government amendments Nos. 32, 33 to 38, 47 to 49, 74, 77 to 80, 83 to 89, 94, 119 to 123, 125 to 133, 135 to 138, and 140 to 142.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has referred to the importance of Third Reading. Does he agree that a timetable motion that precludes discussion or description of any amendment or new clause prevents hon. Members on either side from determining whether or not to support a Bill, because the information simply is not available to them?

Mr. Shepherd: That is the infamy of guillotine motions. My right hon. and learned Friend's intervention makes me nervous. If I were to repeat in their entirety all the amendments on which we might vote, I might deprive the House and the nation of the opportunity to hear my right hon. and learned Friend speak.

Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Every cloud—

Mr. Shepherd: —has a silver lining. A better silver lining would result if the Government reflected on the monstrosity of their guillotine motion.
There are amendments relating to codes of practice and procedures for preventing the carriage of clandestine entrants—Government amendment No. 39, amendment No. 9, Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41, amendment No. 11, and Government amendments Nos. 42 and 45. Codes of practice are of considerable importance, so those amendments deserve proper attention.
Further amendments have been selected on charges for passengers without proper documentation—amendments Nos. 145, 146, 147, 148, Government amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 46, and amendment No. 149. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald alluded to the penalties that might arise from that part of the Bill. There are amendments on bail hearings, a subject in which I am particularly interested. Amendments


Nos. 13 and 14 relate to victims of torture and detainees with children. On appeals, adjudicators and the immigration appeal tribunal, we have Government amendments Nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 97 to 116—I shall not list all of those individually—and 124 and 134.
I have tried to follow the Government's logic in hooking a second guillotine motion to the first. I cannot find the thread in the Speaker's selection that might have led the Government to believe that their soundbites should be reduced to such contempt for the representative and democratic process. On support arrangements for asylum seekers and accommodation, Madam Speaker has selected amendments Nos. 18, 17, 20, 21 and 22. On support arrangements for asylum seekers and interim provisions, she has selected Government amendments Nos. 69 and 95 and Government new schedule 1. On support arrangements for asylum seekers and essential living needs, she has selected amendment No. 143.
Finally, there are amendments on powers of search, arrest, and finger-printing. I know that there is a great distaste for civil liberties these days, and the drum beat is always to give the authorities the right to do things that we traditionally looked at askance. The Home Secretary puffs out his cheeks at that, and I know how irritating all this must be when one is Secretary of State of a great Department that deals with many matters. However, the powers of search, arrest and finger-printing are covered by Government amendments Nos. 75, 76, 81, 82, 90, 117 and 118. After all these amendments, Third Reading would follow. This process cannot be said to be reasonable.
By listing the amendments to be considered by the House, I have tried to set out how absurd it is that any Government of any party should treat the House with the contempt implicit in the Government's derisory dismissal of these great issues. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich correctly said that the business managers want to get through more business and have many important things to do. However, in recalling my 20 years in the House I can think of few pieces of legislation that were crucial to the well-being of the nation. There were few that shaped the decades ahead of them. Most that did were concentrated in the highly contentious and difficult early years of Lady Thatcher's Governments. Gosh, they were bitterly opposed. Guillotines were imposed, and Members on the current Government Front Bench vigorously opposed them with all the fervour with which they now take me aback by promoting them.
Life is like that. Perhaps in the detail of Bills and the actions implicit in the actions proposed by Government we can find the truth. I hope that the Government will realise a truth today. No matter what the outcome of the guillotine motion, I hope that they will not produce such a lamentable motion again. I urge anyone with any spirit to go through the Lobby against the motion, or at least to abstain.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Last night at 10 pm, the Leader of the House told us that a guillotine would be applied. We were debating new clause 4 on clinical freedom and restrictions of prescribing. We were trying to make the Secretary of State admit that there is rationing in the health service, in the hope that the

Government would do something to alleviate it. If the Leader of the House had not come here last night, I would have read a letter from a constituent of mine that goes to the heart of our debate. Our debate about time means that I cannot debate the real issue fully. As we are not debating the Health Bill, but a guillotine motion instead, I shall read only a little of the letter, but it is highly relevant.
My constituent wrote:
I am an ovarian cancer patient. I have been treated at Stoke Hospital but unfortunately after trying two types of chemotherapy my oncologist could not offer me any more treatment even though I feel 100 per cent. better than I did six months ago. Because I am only forty one and have a young family I asked for Taxol"—
a drug known to many hon. Members—
which has very good results only to be told Staffs don't fund Taxol and if they did I wouldn't get it when there are so many people waiting for hip operations. As a result of this I decided to go for a 2nd opinion and am now seeing an oncologist".
My constituent believes that she will have to pay for Taxol.
Many of my hon. Friends have received similar letters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has received hundreds of letters like that, and they demonstrate that rationing exists. However, all that the Secretary of State can do today—he did not bother to turn up at any sitting of the Standing Committee—is talk to his Front—Bench colleagues. He is not listening to what any of us are saying. Finally, he had to be overruled by the High Court, which said that his imposition of rationing—he does not use that word—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing the subject matter of the Bill, rather than the timetable. He must speak to the motion.

Mr. Fabricant: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is simply that so many issues that were discussed in the Health Bill Standing Committee need to be discussed again on Report and at Third Reading.
My hon. Friend and near neighbour the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) listed the groups of amendments selected by Madam Speaker. He calculated that the timetable would allow five and a half minutes to discuss each group. As he said, it is not his opinion or even merely our opinion that the clauses are worth discussing; it is Madam Speaker's opinion. Many more clauses and amendments were tabled and published by the House authorities. Those selected were merely a few that Madam Speaker chose. She felt, on behalf of the House, that they ought to be debated this day for the sake of parliamentary democracy, which means for the sake of those people who elect us to this place.
We all realised that we might well have to debate into the early hours of the morning. I think that all of us were girding our loins. Ladies in the Tea Room asked me whether they would get much overtime and if the debate would go until 4 am or 5 am. While one can argue, as I might, that 4 am is not the best time to debate such issues because of human circadian rhythm—

Miss Widdecombe: It is better than not debating them at all.

Mr. Fabricant: Exactly, but that seems to be a common theme under this Government.
Government new clause 18 was the first issue that we debated last night—a tidying-up clause. Perhaps it was minor and technical, which is how the Secretary of State described all the clauses chosen for debate today. New clause 18 was important and it had to be discussed. If the issue was so minor and technical, as the Secretary of State claims, why did he not produce the new clause in Committee? It is not fair to blame the parliamentary draftsmen; it is passing the buck. We have worked with them and in particular the lady who wrote the explanatory notes and who did so much good and sterling work in the past few weeks in Committee. It is not the parliamentary draftsman but the Government who are at fault.
The very wording of new clause 18 is typical. The first line states:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We agreed new clause 18. I was in the Chair last night. It is away—gone and lost for ever. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the timetable motion.

Mr. Fabricant: You know that it is not gone and lost for ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it has been added to the Bill and will be discussed on Third Reading, with which this motion is concerned. Therefore, I think that it is relevant, but I will not try your patience. I simply point out that the new clause and other amendments in this and other Bills presented by the Government constantly provide for secondary legislation upstairs in the form of statutory instruments.
In the past, what was contained in a Government Bill was clear. It contained the information that people needed to know, such as how it would operate. Now we find not Henry VIII clauses but what I would call blank-cheque clauses. Those state that the issues will not be discussed on the Floor of the House and passed on Third Reading, but will be discussed in a brief one and a half hour debate in Committee.
Time is pressing. We are to have two hours to debate Third Reading and all the clauses that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills enunciated at length—it was right that he did so. This is not parliamentary democracy and it is not why I came to the House in 1992. It is not the reason why one single Member of Parliament in this House was elected. If hon. Members vote for this guillotine motion, it will not only be a betrayal of the electors who elected them but of their own principles that brought them here.

Mr. Philip Hammond: What we are talking about and what has been exercising my right hon. and hon. Friends is an institutionalised stifling of debate. We are considering two important Bills. They are very different, but they both contain important issues, which still need to be debated by the whole House. They have one theme in common—the extensive use of delegated legislation and the reservation of powers to Ministers. I will speak first on the Health Bill, about which I inevitably know a little more.
The Secretary of State told us in his opening remarks that the Health Bill had been thoroughly debated in Committee. How does he know? He was not there. He did not attend the Standing Committee once, not even for a courtesy visit.
Health was the Government's keynote policy. It was one of the issues that they used to persuade the electorate at the last general election. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House were expecting the Bill to be a major part of the Government's programme. However, as we have seen, the Government are afraid to debate their failures. If anyone doubts that health is one of their failures, they need only to have seen the graphics displayed on BBC television on Sunday night during the election programmes, which showed how the Government's ratings with the general public have fallen further and faster on health than on any other matter.
The Government are good at publishing glossy White Papers and consultation documents and they are good at issuing press releases—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking not about the issues but the timetable.

Mr. Hammond: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall attempt to show that vital issues remain to be discussed, despite the debate in the House of Lords and in Committee, which must be debated on the Floor of the House.
The Government have delayed all along. They delayed between issuing the White Paper in December 1997 and publishing the Bill for initial consideration by hon. Members at the beginning of this year. They maximised the gap before the reality bit—the period of time when the airy language of the White Paper could be circulated and before it was shot down by the harsh reality of what is in the Bill. During that period, it is fair to say that many people in the professions connected with medicine supported what the Government were doing and liked what they saw in the White Paper. However, that changed rapidly and dramatically when they read the detail of the Bill. As the Bill progressed through the House, those professionals came to us because they relied on us, during Report and at Third Reading, to raise the concerns that still exist after the Bill's extensive consideration. The Government could not get the Bill right, even though it had a year in gestation. The Bill deals with realities, not merely the aspirations expressed in the White Paper.
When the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, it had 54 clauses and 66 pages. The Bill before us this evening contains 68 clauses and 106 pages. The Government made it up as they went along. They are still making it up now; even during the past few days, they have tabled new clauses and substantive amendments. We must have the opportunity to scrutinise those provisions in detail.
Last night, the Leader of the House said, with a flourish, that the Government had given advance notice of their intention to table a clause containing the provisions in new clause 18. She implied that, in some way, that made it less necessary for us to consider and debate that matter. She referred to a letter from the Minister of State about tabling that new clause, but that letter indicated the Minister's intention to table the clause


in Committee. The first that we saw of the new clause was when it was introduced last week; none of us had a formal opportunity to scrutinise it until yesterday.
The right hon. Lady also said that the 82 Government amendments were largely technical. I appreciate that she is not able to follow every Bill in detail as it progresses through the House, but she was not correct in saying that.
The Government amendments tabled to address local representative committees are far from technical; they amount to a reversal of the position that the Government took up in Committee on a new clause that was—incidentally—tabled extremely late and was unable to be debated adequately in Committee. In relation to pharmaceutical pricing, the Government have taken on board at least some of the points made by the Opposition in Committee. However, we certainly needed the opportunity to explore those points further.
Several vital issues were included in the Bill as a result of cross-party initiatives in the House of Lords, such as the regulation of private health care, on which the Secretary of State slipped out a press release at 3 o'clock this morning—no doubt thinking that we would be debating the subject at that time; and the transition from primary care groups to primary care trusts. In Committee, the Government used their majority to delete those provisions, so we will now have to send the Bill back to the House of Lords with their lordships' carefully considered and well-argued provisions deleted, without our having had the opportunity to debate on the Floor of this House the reasons for the Government's action.
There is an arrogance about what the Government did yesterday and today. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that Governments always try to avoid scrutiny. I am sure that she is right. However, in this case, the effort to avoid scrutiny is dangerously misplaced; it is clear from the evidence of the passage of the Health Bill through the House so far that it benefited greatly from the scrutiny that it received. The Government fear proper consideration of the issues because that exposes the gap between their rhetoric and the reality that drives their actions tonight.
It is apparent that the Government regard the beauty sleep of Ministers as more important than debate on hospital waiting lists, in which my right hon. and hon. Friends would have been able to probe the alternative solution of considering hospital waiting times. Ministers' sleep is more important than establishing proper relationships between the NHS and the private sector, so that both can benefit. It is more important than the scandal of junior doctors' working hours, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) touched on during his speech. It is more important than allaying the widespread fears and anxieties of GPs as to the transition mechanisms for primary care trusts.
We have been unfortunate in that the Health Bill and the Immigration and Asylum Bill were side by side in this week's business. There was no need at all for the Government to stop the business at 10 o'clock last night. They could have allowed the debate on the Health Bill to run on through the night without risking, in any way, the progress of the Immigration and Asylum Bill today. However, their business managers seized the opportunity to use that excuse to curtail debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. There was no excuse whatever for

dragging that Bill into what was, in essence, a health dispute. Those Labour Members who were likely to prove awkward in respect of the Immigration and Asylum Bill had already been sent off on their gardening leave for the appropriate days. No member of the Government wanted to risk any slippage in the timetable.
I am conscious of the fact that I need to leave enough time for the Home Secretary to respond to the debate, but this has been a very shabby episode indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) used the word "pique", which I had already written down in my notes. The whole matter smacks of pique. The Government are acting like a school bully who was given a thumping on Sunday evening and came into the Chamber on Monday determined to throw his weight around, in a desperate effort to reassert himself—or perhaps I should say "herself'. However, in that process, the Government have proclaimed their contempt for Parliament; they have reasserted their determination to undermine and marginalise this House. I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the timetable motion.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I begin on what is, I hope, a harmonious note in what has otherwise been a rather discordant debate. It is rare to see a Member on either Front Bench making a seamless transition from one portfolio to another in the course of a single debate. However, that is the honour that has befallen the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I congratulate her on her appointment as shadow Home Secretary. She brings to that position a comprehensive—indeed, daunting—knowledge of many aspects of the work of the Home Office. I wish her well and look forward to many constructive engagements.
I also offer my good wishes to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who has just retired as shadow Home Secretary. Although we have held many arguments across the Floor of the House, I thank him for the way in which he has conducted those arguments, and for the many private conversations that we have held—as is inevitable and necessary with the work of the Home Office. I also send him my good wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made some important points about guillotine motions with which I agree. I accept her point that debate in the House is at its best when it is allowed to flow freely, where there is give and take, and where there is a real dialectical process—I do not use the phrase in a mocking sense—in which propositions are put forward and countered, and progress is made in the thinking of hon. Members on both sides of the House. For that reason, I say—I hope that these remarks will not be taken down, although I accept that they will be—that I have had some reservations about the limit on speeches that has been instituted. The best part of a debate is when one is challenged—either by one's own side or by opponents. That is what makes debate in the House so different from debate almost anywhere else.
That said, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right in another respect: on occasion, all Governments have to resort to guillotine motions. The Labour Government are no exception to that rule—any more than the previous Conservative Government were.

Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall do so in a second.
Governments resort to guillotine motions when it is not possible to reach agreement through the usual channels on the broad timetable for debates.
I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield, but I ask him to be brief because time is limited.

Mr. Fabricant: Why did the Government have to up stumps so early last night; and, if that had to be done, why did it have to be done at 10 o'clock? Why not midnight, 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock, which would have allowed us to debate more amendments?

Mr. Straw: I shall come to that point, but let me first finish my more general point.
All Governments have to resort to guillotines when it is not possible to reach a sensible agreement with the Opposition. In the early stages of a 17-year period on the Opposition Front Bench, I, like my colleagues, thought that it would impress the electorate if we filibustered debates. We used the same and well-tried technique as the Opposition used last night, in which colleagues support each other—it is actually quite entertaining and we impress each other, if no one else. I was a party to the use of those techniques and, for quite some time, thought that it would convince our constituents that we were doing the business for them. We used to use similarly high-flown phrases about the end of parliamentary democracy as we knew it and words like "arrogance" when the Government tried to stop us. However, after a while, I discovered that the good people of Blackburn were not terribly impressed.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the failure to reach a sensible agreement, but any failure in respect of any Bill was confined to the Health Bill. Why has he imposed a guillotine on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which had not been tested in debate on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Straw: Let me come to that point later, along with the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
As I was saying, I remember the Duke of York activities and our discovery that they were less impressive than we had thought. Towards the end of my sojourn on the Opposition Front Bench, I strove hard and usually successfully, even on very contentious Bills, to reach agreement with people renowned outside the House and even among their own junior Ministers—I should point out that I did not share the view—for not being entirely reasonable. I endeavoured to reach agreement on the conduct of debates, and the debates were the better for that and far more impressive than the Opposition running debates through the night.
That brings me to the question of why both Bills have been included in one guillotine motion. Anyone who was in the House last night, as I was, listening to and observing the debate, and anyone who missed that great delight and has had to read the Official Report, will have noted that there was a most serious filibuster. There is no dispute about that—

Mr. David Amess: There was not.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire and who is also an Essex man, protests too much—of course there was a filibuster going on and there is no point in getting into a terrible lather about it.
The Opposition had been told on three occasions, without protesting once, that there would be one day for Report and Third Reading of the Health Bill, yet the whole of yesterday was used up debating only a tiny part of that Bill, with no prospect of agreement with the usual channels on the remainder of the Bill. Despite continuing discussions, no undertakings had been forthcoming, and it was becoming palpably clear that, even if we had gone through the night, which would not have impressed anyone, there was no prospect of finishing the Health Bill before the end of the week—still less commencing and finishing proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. That is why we regretfully had to adopt the procedure of guillotining two Bills in one motion.
The right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald and for Sutton Coldfield are not suffering from total amnesia: they have some vague recollection of the period before 1 May 1997, when they were members of a Government. They have had to admit that, every so often and always with regret, the previous Government introduced guillotine motions, and that, because they were adornments on the Treasury Bench for much of that time, they had to vote for them.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that the Conservatives did not guillotine the sort of Bills that we are guillotining. He said—I paraphrase, but not completely—that they guillotined only really nasty Bills that everyone opposed, and that they did not guillotine soft and cuddly Bills—like the Immigration and Asylum Bill, I suppose. I am sorry to have to disabuse the right hon. Gentleman, but one of the Bills that was guillotined by his Government was one for which there was serious all-party support and which has, on the whole, stood the test of time: on 26 November 1989, the Children Bill was guillotined. There have been few less controversial Bills than that, but it was guillotined.
That brings us to the central charge levelled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. As a supporter of and then a member of the Conservative Government, she has form and previous convictions for having, time and again, traipsed through the Lobby to vote for a guillotine motion. To try to distinguish her previous convictions from the form that the Labour Government are clocking up, she says that there is a difference between a guillotine motion that guillotines only one Bill and one that guillotines two. She asked, not once, not twice, but three times: when did the previous Government go for a double guillotine? Well, I can tell her when they did that.
To spare the right hon. Lady's blushes, I have not gone back over the full 18 years of Conservative rule; I have taken my evidence only from the middle of 1987,


when she became a Member of Parliament. On 11 November 1988, the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Housing Bill were guillotined in a double motion. On 26 November 1989, the Children Bill was guillotined with the Companies Bill. I should point out to the hon. Member for Aldridge—Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that, at 167 clauses, there were more clauses in the Companies Bill, which was a single part of that double bill, than are contained in the Health Bill and the Immigration and Asylum Bill combined.
Barely was the ink dry on the double guillotine motion of 26 November 1989 than, two weeks later, November, the Local Government and Housing Bill and the Employment Bill were guillotined together. Finally, to confirm that double guillotines were a serious habit of the Conservative Government, on 13 March 1992, the Finance Bill and the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Bill were guillotined together.
I have checked the record, in recognition of the possibility that on each of those occasions—November 1988, October 1989, November 1989 and March 1992—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald might have been absent from the House. After all, she might have been sent on a trip by her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the then Home Secretary. However, I have to inform her that she is plainly suffering from the most profound amnesia, for on every single occasion that the House was invited by the Conservative Government of which she was a member to vote for a double guillotine, she went into the Lobby to do so. She did not miss a single occasion, so strong was her support for the concept of the double guillotine. [Interruption.] One of my colleagues suggests that the right hon. Lady is a recidivist.
As a Home Office Minister, the right hon. Lady introduced courses in Her Majesty's establishments to address offending behaviour. Before one can address such behaviour, one must admit one's guilt. If people are in denial so complete that they have no knowledge of committing an offence, they cannot go on courses to address their offending behaviour. In her ministerial capacity, the right hon. Lady stressed that, if prisoners did not participate in courses to address their offending behaviour, they could not earn parole and early release. I regret that the right hon. Lady and her right hon. and hon. Friends will have a slow release from the labours of Opposition if they continue in this way.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich that 18 years of opposition was a hard school. There are two ways to oppose the Government. The first is to run at the wall. We tried that method for quite a long time—for too long—and wondered why we had a sore head and why no one was terribly impressed. The second is to debate matters properly, agreeing sensible timetable motions with the Government of the day. That is what we decided to do and, as a result, the then Government achieved its business program and the conduct of parliamentary business improved.
Both of the Bills before us have been the subject of thorough discussion, and the Immigration and Asylum Bill has been considered in a Special Standing Committee. I believe that this motion is entirely justified.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 145.

Division No. 205]
[7.32 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross


Alexander, Douglas
Crausby, David


Allen, Graham
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cummings, John


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary



Ashton, Joe
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dalyell, Tarn


Atkins, Charlotte
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barnes, Harry
Darvill, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Begg, Miss Anne
Dawson, Hilton


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Denham, John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dismore, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dobbin, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drown, Ms Julia


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Boateng, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Borrow, David
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fisher, Mark


Bradshaw, Ben
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Lorna



Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Flint, Caroline



Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond
Foulkes, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Galbraith, Sam


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Burgon, Colin
Gapes, Mike


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gardiner, Barry


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Goggins, Paul


Caton, Martin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cawsey, Ian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hain, Peter



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy






Hoon, Geoffrey
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hope, Phil
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mountford, Kali


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mudie, George


Howells, Dr Kim
Mullin, Chris


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jamieson, David
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kidney, David
Radice, Giles


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rammell, Bill


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kumar Dr Ashok
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie



Laxton, Bob
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lepper, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Roy, Frank


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ruane, Chris


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Sarwar, Mohammad


McAllion, John
Savidge, Malcolm


McAvoy, Thomas
Sawford, Phil


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brain


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Shaw, Jonathan



Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonnell, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mallaber, Judy
Snape, Peter



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Squire, Ms Rachel


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meale, Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Merron, Gillian
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stott, Roger


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moffatt, Laura
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stringer, Graham


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stuart, Ms Gisela



Morley, Elliot
Sutcliffe, Gerry





Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Temple—Morris, Peter



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Timms, Stephen
Wills, Michael


Tipping, Paddy
Winnick, David


Touhig, Don
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Trickett, Jon
Wise, Audrey


Truswell, Paul
Wood, Mike


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Vaz, Keith
Wyatt, Derek


Walley, Ms Joan



Ward, Ms Claire
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Kevin Hughes and Jane Kennedy.


Wareing, Robert N



White, Brian





NOES


Allan, Richard
Hammond, Philip


Amess, David
Hancock, Mike


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Harris, Dr Evan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Harvey, Nick


Baker, Norman
Hawkins, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Heald, Oliver


Bercow, John
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Horam, John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brady, Graham
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brake, Tom
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brazier, Julian
Jenkin, Bernard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Keetch, Paul


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Key, Robert


Burnett, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burstow, Paul
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Butterfill, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor



Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cash, William
Lansley, Andrew


Chidgey, David
Leigh, Edward


Clappison, James
Letwin, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Livsey, Richard


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Loughton, Tim


Cotter, Brian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
Madel, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fearn, Ronnie
Moore, Michael


Flight, Howard
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Foster, Don (Bath)
Norman, Archie


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Oaten, Mark


Fraser, Christopher
Öpik, Lembit


Garnier, Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Paice, James


Gill, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Randall, John


Gray, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Green, Damian
Rendel, David


Greenway, John
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Grieve, Dominic
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)






Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


St Aubyn, Nick
Trend, Michael


Sanders, Adrian
Tyler, Paul


Sayeed, Jonathan
Tyrie, Andrew


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard
Walter, Robert


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wardle, Charles


Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)
Waterson, Nigel


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Webb, Steve


Soames, Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Steen, Anthony
Willis, Phil


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stunell, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Syms, Robert
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Tim Collings.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)



Taylor, Sir Teddy

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Health Bill [Lords] and the Immigration and Asylum Bill—

Timetable

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Health Bill [Lords] shall be completed at the sitting this day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second allotted day.

Questions to be put

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings on either of the Bills to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings—

(a) on the Health Bill [Lords];

(b) on the Immigration and Asylum Bill at the sitting this day until midnight;
(c) on the Immigration and Asylum Bill on the second allotted day;

and those proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

4.—(1) If at the sitting this day—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to seven o'clock, and
(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before that time,

the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until midnight.

(2) If on the second allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to seven o'clock or from an earlier day, the Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on either of the Bills.

6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on either of the Bills are taken or to recommit either of the Bills; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to either of the Bills except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of proceedings on this Motion or on either of the Bills, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Interpretation

10. In this Order 'allotted day' means this day and any other day on which the Immigration and Asylum Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.

Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assume that the Government intend, later in the debate, to introduce the issue of their consultation paper on the regulation of the private health care system, which was promised before further progress was made on the Bill. I was concerned that the document was not available to me in the Vote Office, although it has been published, and it has not been sent to Front-Bench spokespersons. I know that it is available only because copies that were sent to a Labour Back Bencher who chairs the Select Committee on Health arrived in my office by mistake. I should be grateful for your guidance as to whether it is appropriate and in order for the Government to refer to a document that has been published but which Opposition Front-Bench Members have not had a chance to read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but I hope that Ministers will look into it.

Orders of the Day — Health Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

New Clause 4

CRITERIA FOR APPRAISALS BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE

"The Special Health Authority known as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence shall make its appraisals of different treatments and clinical interventions on the basis of clinical efficacy or relative cost-effectiveness compared with alternative treatments or clinical interventions for the same symptoms, but not on the basis of their affordability in relation to the funds available to the National Health Service."—[Dr. Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question proposed, [14 June], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that with this we are discussing new clause 14—National Institute for Clinical Excellence (duties and consultation with public)—

'.—(1) The Special Health Authority known as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (the "Authority") shall meet in public.

(2) The Authority shall publish annually a report on its activities during the preceding calendar year which the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament.

(3) The Secretary of State shall establish a public consultative committee in relation to the Authority, which shall have the duty of advising the Authority on the public's view on the priority to be accorded to different treatments and clinical interventions within the NHS.

(4) The constitution and membership of the committee mentioned in subsection (3) shall be such as the Secretary of State may determine in Regulations.'.

New clause 16—Protection of doctors' clinical freedom to prescribe appropriate drugs—
'.—The Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers to include a drug in schedule 11 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 (as subsequently amended) in such a way as to restrict the circumstances in which the drug may be prescribed by reference to the different underlying causes of the symptoms for whose treatment it is clinically effective.'.

New clause 17—Cost or affordability not to be criteria for restricting prescribing of drugs.—
'.—In issuing guidance on prescribing, or in exercising his powers to include a drug in schedule 10 (drugs and other substances not to be prescribed for supply under pharmaceutical services) or schedule 11 (drugs to be prescribed under pharmaceutical services only in certain circumstances) to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 (as subsequently amended), the Secretary of State shall not base his decision on the criterion of either the cost or the affordability of the drug in question.'.

Mr. John Bercow: The House will be delighted to learn that last night I was bringing my remarks, which had necessarily to be brief, to a conclusion when an untimely interruption to our business took place. I am happy to round up my remarks now.
We are concerned about the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the new clauses relating thereto. I have made the point before, and I underline it now, that there is interest in, but considerable concern about, the future direction of the national institute. It is for the Minister of State to assuage our concerns.
Will NICE be genuinely independent, given the framework agreement—to use the Minister's term—within which it will have to operate? Will it be possible for the national institute, when it is up and running, to exercise its own judgment without interference, public or private, from Health Ministers or Department officials acting on their behalf?
Will the Minister assure us that the national institute's assessments of treatments for conditions will take into account not only clinical cost-effectiveness but other costs that should properly form part of the equation? Will it be able to consider, make a judgment on, and draw up recommendations based on the social costs of opting for, or of failing to provide, one treatment or another? Those are crucial judgments at the heart of the new clauses.
Yesterday evening, in the absence of any significant contribution to the debate from Labour Members, it was left to Conservative Members to represent their constituents' interests and to scrutinise the Executive. We had a little assistance from Liberal Democrat Members, and it would be churlish to deny that. The Minister of State had a relatively easy time as he listened to us. This evening, we need to hear from him. What are his answers to our questions? What form will the body take? Can he produce the evidence? Is he capable of assuaging the legitimate concerns of the official Opposition, of the Liberal Democrats, and much more important, of millions of people throughout the country who are waiting to find out what sort of creature NICE is? We have made our case, and await a response.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): We had a lengthy debate on the new clauses last night and important issues have been raised, although some of those were fully explored in Committee. I shall try to deal with some of the issues that were raised in last night's debate.
The casual observer of the debate might think that the Bill is about the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which has been established in the proper way as a special health authority. Given the way in which the Bill intermeshes with other reforms that the Government are carrying through, it is understandable that hon. Members have sought to debate NICE and its relationship to other health reforms.
As we have made clear on numerous occasions, NICE will play a key role in modernising the NHS and driving up standards within it. The intention is that the national institute will issue authoritative guidance to health professionals, and help to ensure the faster and more uniform uptake of clinically effective and cost-effective treatments. New clause 14 tabled by the Liberal Democrats deals with a number of separate issues. Subsection (1) would require NICE to hold its meetings in public. It is entirely right that there should be openness and transparency in the workings of NICE. During the debate on the establishment of NICE we made a commitment to extend the Public Bodies (Access to Meetings) Act 1960 to incorporate the National Institute


for Clinical Excellence. We are doing that. We are currently preparing a statutory instrument to ensure that NICE will be subject to the 1960 Act. In practice, that means that meetings will generally be open to the public, but allows them to be excluded where publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business or for other special reason.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful remarks. On the qualification point, which I understand, can he give us an assurance that if there are to be times when NICE will meet in secret for the reasons that he has given, a record of the meeting and its conclusions will be available to the public at a later stage? I understand that occasionally a meeting may need to be held in secret.

Mr. Denham: I am sure that normal procedures with regard to publication of records of meetings of public bodies would apply. I imagine—the matter is probably worthy of further examination—that if the information would be of great commercial importance to the companies whose products were being appraised, great care should be taken by me this evening not to give the impression that the position of those companies would be lightly undermined. I am sure that normal procedures for public bodies would otherwise apply.
Subsection (2) of new clause 14 would require NICE to publish an annual report, and would require the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament. It has also long been the Government's intention that NICE should publish an annual report, and that, as is common practice, the report should be made available to Parliament. We do not need primary legislation to do that. It will be achieved through directions issued by the Secretary of State.
The national institute is a special health authority established in secondary legislation under the National Health Service Act 1977 and, accordingly, directions are the appropriate way forward. Subsections (3) and (4) confuse the role of NICE and the guidance that it will issue with the way in which priorities are set in the NHS. That goes to the heart of part of the debate last night.
By developing a consistent body of guidance on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different treatments and procedures, NICE will play an important role in tackling unjustified variations in access to treatment and it will provide valuable information on which clinicians, the Government and others in the NHS will make their decisions. NICE will, we believe, help to ensure that the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatments are widely available, without the delays that have accompanied the introduction of effective treatments in the past. However, we do not intend that NICE should become a substitute for the decisions that clinicians and others must take. That was the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
Ministers are accountable for setting overall priorities for the NHS and, on occasion, for setting specific priorities—for example, the priority that we attach to the coronary heart disease national service framework. We have also given a particular priority to smoking cessation. Ministers are and must remain accountable for those decisions. On the example of smoking, as we discussed

in Committee, there is a substantial body of work on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation. As it happens, that guidance predates NICE, but is the sort of guidance that might be issued by NICE in the future. I believe that it is right that we should establish NICE to make such information available. I also believe that it is right that in such a case it is the Government who set the priorities.
However, not all such decisions are taken by Government. Clinicians must also take important decisions about the treatments that are best for their patients and, in so doing, they want information about clinical and cost-effectiveness. NICE will provide that information, but NICE has no power to determine what decision is taken in each individual case. If a drug or treatment were ruled out on the NHS, that could be done only by the Government, and therefore by Ministers, as is the case at present.
The Liberal Democrats seem to want to transfer both the general responsibility of Government and the specific individual decisions of clinicians to NICE. That is what I understand to be the role of the patients forum that the Liberal Democrats want to establish. That is not the role that we intend NICE to play. I do not believe that it is the role NICE should play, whether it is advised by a committee of patients or not.
Of course, patients and their representatives have an important role in shaping the way in which NICE approaches its task. That is reflected in the way that patients are represented on the partners council. Through the council patients will help to ensure that the guidance that NICE issues is as good as it can be, and that NICE produces its guidance in a form that all groups can best understand. We want the information to be accessible to patients as well as to clinicians, and they will help to ensure that the voice of patients and other important stakeholders will be heard at the heart of the national institute.

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that only the Government would be in a position—ultimately, I presume he means—to rule out the provision of treatments. Assuming that in some circumstances the national institute might judge that a particular treatment was not cost-effective and should not therefore be provided, is the hon. Gentleman referring to a situation in which NICE has one view and the Government have another? If so, is NICE obliged to accept some form of collective responsibility, or is it entitled to make it clear that although it defers to the Government, it disagrees with the Government's decision?

Mr. Denham: The point that I was making is straightforward. Perhaps I can best deal with it by turning to new clause 4, which covers it. As I said in Committee, NICE will operate within a framework agreement set by the Secretary of State.
We are committed to ensuring that that framework, and any other guidance from the Secretary of State, is open and transparent. It will be clear where the Government have given guidance, if they did so. We made it clear in the appraisal document, "Faster Access to Modern Treatment", that there may be circumstances in which NICE concludes that a particular procedure should not generally be available on the NHS, because of its lack of clinical or cost-effectiveness or because alternative procedures are simply and clearly more effective.
We would expect health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts, NHS trusts and clinicians to take full account of such guidance, but it is important to make it clear that NICE will have no power to reach and impose a decision on what is or is not available. If, having read NICE guidance, Ministers concluded that it should be enforced by regulation, it must remain the responsibility of Ministers to take such a decision and be accountable for it.

Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister has several times used the phrase "cost-effectiveness". Can he elaborate on what he means by that? When he asks NICE to consider various treatments for the same symptom or disorder, it is clear how he will measure the cost-effectiveness, but how will he measure the cost-effectiveness of a treatment for cancer against the cost-effectiveness of a hip replacement?

8 pm

Mr. Denham: The point is that it will be for NICE to make the judgments and to explain how it has reached the judgments that it will provide on particular treatments or interventions. If it compares different approaches to treating a particular condition, it must also explain how it has assessed those approaches, one against the other, and reached its conclusions. That is the role that we will look to the national institute to play in making the appraisals that we have asked it to make. Professor Michael Rawlins, the widely respected chairman of the national institute, will play a role in developing the methodologies that will enable that to be done effectively, which is one reason why we want substantial expertise to be available to the national institute.

Mr. Bercow: That was a nice try, but I am afraid that it will not suffice. The Minister has provided an excellent answer to a question that I did not ask, but, unfortunately, he has not provided an answer to the question I asked. If he does not mind, I will choose the questions and I should be very grateful if he would provide the answers. The situation to which I am referring is one in which NICE concludes that it believes that a treatment should be provided, but the Government decide otherwise. If the Government insist on getting their own way, will NICE be at liberty publicly to declare its disagreement with the Government's decision? That is my question.

Mr. Denham: It is absolutely our intention that the appraisals carried out by NICE will be public appraisals. If the national institute produces an appraisal suggesting that a particular drug should be used in particular circumstances and the Government of the day decide that that drug should not be used, that decision will be there for people to see. They will be able to compare the published appraisal of the national institute with the decision taken by Ministers. I hope that I can make some progress, because some other important issues were raised. I turn to new clauses 16 and 17.

Dr. Evan Harris: I thank the Minister for giving way and, to save time on my reply, may I press him on the nub of new clause 4? I should like to hear from him the following words:

NICE will not be asked to take into account overall cost or affordability in its calculations and appraisals and will stick strictly—as the hon. Gentleman has already said, although he has not yet limited it to this—to clinical effectiveness and relative cost-effectiveness.

Mr. Denham: I risk repeating what I said several times over in Committee. Some months ago, we published a document on the appraisal techniques to be used by the national institute. We received a wide range of responses, some of which said that NICE must take into account almost every penny of NHS resources and apply a particular procedure to that. Others took the position that NICE should take no account even of cost-effectiveness, let alone wider NHS resources. I said in Committee that we were considering the responses to the consultation and we will decide in due course what factors we will ask NICE to take into account. I have made an important promise this evening, and have repeated what I said in Committee. The key point is that the framework that we establish for NICE and any guidance that is issued to it will be open and transparent. I am repeating a commitment made in Committee.

Mr. Hammond: rose—

Mr. Denham: I am somewhat in the hands of the hon. Gentleman, but I had assumed that the House would want to discuss more than one issue this evening. I shall give way to him once more and then perhaps I can make progress.

Mr. Hammond: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he acknowledge that the question that he has ducked is extremely important? We cannot consider how NICE will operate in practice until we know the answer to it. If NICE will simply consider on a comparative basis the cost of providing a given outcome in a given situation, that will be beneficial—no one would disagree with that—but if it is to be asked to look at different outcomes to different situations and weigh them against each other, that will clearly be a rationing mechanism, which is what Conservative Members have suspected all along. We must know the answer.

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman persists in missing the fundamental point, which is that NICE will provide the guidance sought by clinicians and others in the health service about how they take decisions. They will wish to know, and they will know, on what basis the national institute has reached those decisions and they will be able to take that into account in responding to the guidance. I shall move on—

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Denham: No, I will resist the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) spoke for over an hour last night. [Interruption.] I may have been present for part of that discussion, and I think that it would be fairer to respond to the points that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has already made and with which I have not yet had a chance to deal.
I turn to new clauses 16 and 17, which would restrict the Secretary of State's freedom to take decisions about which medicines should be prescribable by general practitioners under the NHS. The Liberal Democrats are in a somewhat confusing situation: they are seeking to establish a patients forum to determine what drugs should be available on the NHS and, at the same time, they are tabling new clauses which would remove from any Government the ability to take decisions about which medicines should be prescribable.
Schedule 11 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 lists drugs that can be prescribed under the NHS only in certain circumstances. For example, clobazam can be prescribed only for the treatment of epilepsy, not as a sedative or tranquilliser, but there are good reasons for that. Clobazam offers clinical benefit in treating epilepsy, yet it is a far more expensive sedative or tranquilliser than similar drugs which have the same properties. At current prices, a packet of 30 clobazam tablets costs about £10, but a similar-sized packet of diazepam costs no more than a few pence. It would be ridiculous, I suggest, to countenance the use of clobazam as a sedative when other, equally effective treatments are available much more cheaply. The new clause would make it impossible for a Government to continue to use that provision.
That schedule, subject to parliamentary acceptance of the necessary regulations, will be used to restrict the prescribing of treatments for impotence from 1 July. In this instance, it is proposed that treatment will be available to categories of men with specified underlying organic causes of impotence.
New clause 17 strikes at the heart of the Government's ability to influence or control the costs of prescribing and would constrain even the Secretary of State's ability to issue guidance. He could not say to doctors, for example, "Think about the cost of this medicine when you are considering prescribing it." He could not even point out that an equally effective medicine was available at lower cost. That would be plainly absurd. It would also constrain his ability to make regulations that would either prevent GPs from prescribing things on the NHS or restrict the circumstances in which they should do so. New clause 17 would undermine the purposes of schedules 10 and 11 to the GMS regulations. The majority of the products in those schedules appear as a result of advice from two committees: the Advisory Committee on NHS Drugs and the Advisory Committee on Borderline Substances.
I hope that I have covered the core issues if not the detailed issues that have been raised. We were invited yesterday to agree that the NHS rations; I do not agree with that. We were also invited to agree that rationing is defined as sharing out in fixed quantities; that is precisely what the NHS does not do. We do not each have a fixed quantity of NHS resources. What we use and what we gain from the NHS varies according to our own life histories and ill-health. That is precisely the reason why we reject language that is used only by those who seek to undermine the NHS and put a private health service in its place.

Dr. Harris: I am afraid that that reply varied from disappointing to very disappointing. The Minister is usually correct in his facts, but during a debate, mainly on Liberal Democrat new clauses and amendments, lasting nearly six hours, I spoke for 45 minutes and took

eight interventions—a greater number than he was able to take in his reply. I regret that he would not take the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), our Front-Bench spokesman, which he has been good enough to do in the past.
On new clause 4, it is clear that the Government are hiding their answer behind a consultation process. I believe that primary legislation—this may be our only opportunity to discuss this issue on that basis during the current Parliament—should take precedence over consultation. It will not do for the Government to try to hide their position behind a consultation process in which, according to the Minister himself—I think that he understood this point—there would be extremes of view. People, certainly including clinicians and patients' organisations, are desperate to know whether the Government are minded to allow guidance to come from a professional body on the basis of affordability or of overall costs. As the Government have not allowed us a separate debate, this is our best opportunity to find that out.
The Government say that it is for them to regulate on the basis of guidance from the institute—guidance which will bind neither them nor individual clinicians. We fear, however, that this Government or other Governments may say, "We must look at the guidance from the professionals. We would be foolish to ignore it." We are keen to ensure that a professional body—or, at least, a body that is informed by experts and by professional advice—is not forced by the Government to consider matters that should be solely the Government's remit, and that the Government are not allowed to hide behind such arrangements.

Mr. Simon Hughes: About a year ago, when the Government asked the health service pay review bodies what they wanted to do, the Government set a precedent by telling the pay review bodies that they must take account of cost before recommending the level of salaries. That is a bad precedent, but it look as if the Government will go down the same road in relation to advice on rationing.

Dr. Harris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because the Government will not rule out that option, professionals and friends of the health service must look at the Government's form—and, as far as the NHS is concerned, the Government have previously sought to run away from their responsibilities for the fact that the service is desperately short of funds.
The Minister refused to answer another question, which was asked badly by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) but which I shall put in a different way. If the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has to look at just the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of drugs and treatments, will it be able to criticise Government policy—such as the Government's obsession with waiting lists—on the ground that it is an ineffective and non-cost-effective use of resources? I shall be interested to see whether the Minister can tell us now that the institute will be free to criticise Government policy and priorities. His decision to remain seated suggests that the institute will not be free to do that, which is a great pity. New clause 14 sought to bring the institute into the public domain. We are pleased with the Minister's


response to subsection (1), but both the Government and the Conservative Opposition failed to understand that subsection (3) was intended to ensure that the patient's voice was heard in decisions about which treatments the institute would consider, rather than in decisions about whether the Government should engage in rationing. It is unfortunate that neither party decided to consider that. I am also concerned about the Government's response to new clause 16.

Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: No. I want to finish my speech, and the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time in which to speak.
Effectively, the Government are saying that new clause 16 would stop them from restricting the use of drugs as treatment for certain conditions when other treatment would be equally effective, both clinically and in terms of cost. Perhaps the new clause should have been drafted in those precise terms, but I am sure that the Government would have rejected it in any event. In the Minister's example, it was clear that the decision to restrict use of an anti-epileptic drug was based on its effectiveness, and relative cost-effectiveness, in certain conditions, rather than being based—as with the restrictions on the use of Viagra—on the original cause of the condition. That is highly discriminatory. In a similar manner, the Government wriggled out of the implications of new clause 17 by claiming that cost was the same as cost-effectiveness. Of course it is right for the Minister to be able to offer guidance on the use of a drug on the basis of cost-effectiveness, but the new clause refers to cost and affordability, so the Minister's answer does not wash. On the basis of all that, we shall press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 322.

Division No. 206]
[8.15 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Livsey, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brake, Tom
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Burstow, Paul
Öpik, Lembit


Cable, Dr Vincent
Rendel, David


Chidgey, David
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Cotter, Brian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Sanders, Adrian


Feam, Ronnie
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Forsythe, Clifford
Stunell, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hancock, Mike
Webb, Steve


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick



Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Mark Oaten and Sir Robert Smith.


Keetch, Paul



Kirkwood, Archy



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainger, Nick
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atherton, Ms Candy


Alexander, Douglas
Atkins, Charlotte


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barnes, Harry





Barron, Kevin
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Beard, Nigel
Doran, Frank


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Begg, Miss Anne
Drew, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Drown, Ms Julia


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Edwards, Huw


Bermingham, Gerald
Efford, Clive


Berry, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Best, Harold
Ennis, Jeff


Betts, Clive
Fisher, Mark


Blackman, Liz
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzsimons, Loma


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Follett, Barbara


Borrow, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Galloway, George


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
Gardiner, Barry


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Burgon, Colin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Giffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Grocott, Bruce


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gunnell, John


Chaytor, David
Hain, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clelland, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Connarty, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hutton, John


Davidson, Ian
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobbin, Jim







Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selty Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Primarolo, Dawn


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kidney, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooney, Terry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted



Lepper, David
Roy, Frank


Leslie, Christopher
Ruane, Chris


Levitt, Tom
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sarwar, Mohammad


Linton, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm


Livingstone, Ken
Sawford, Phil


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lock, David
Shaw, Jonathan


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCabe, Steve
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)



Skinner, Dennis


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McNulty, Tony
Snape, Peter


Mactaggart, Fiona
Soley, Clive


Mallaber, Judy
Southworth, Ms Helen


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Stevenson, George


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Maxton, John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Meale, Alan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Merron, Gillian
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Miller, Andrew
Stringer, Graham


Moffatt, Laura
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)



Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Timms, Stephen


Mountford, Kali

Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Norris, Dan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Olner, Bill
Vaz, Keith


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Ms Joan


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Ward, Ms Claire


Pearson, Ian
Wareing, Robert N


Pendry, Tom
Watts, David


Pickthall, Colin
White, Brian


Pike, Peter L
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Plaskitt, James
Wicks, Malcolm





Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Woolas, Phil



Worthington, Tony


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Wills, Michael
Wyatt, Derek


Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Graham Allen.


Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 7

INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE NHS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent review to assess the extent of, and make recommendations to end, discrimination by the NHS on the grounds of age, disability, race, sex and sexual orientation in its capacity as—

(a) an employer, and;
(b) a provider of health services.

(2) In subsection (1) "independent" means having a majority of members not employed by the NHS or under the control of the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 78, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) Appropriate arrangements shall be made with a view to securing that a Primary Care Trust's functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex and sexual orientation, except where clinically justifiable.'.

No. 83, in clause 18, page 23, line 23, at end insert
'with due regard to the principle that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age, race, sex and sexual orientation, except where clinically justified.'.

No. 80, in page 23, line 23, at end insert—
'(1A) The reference in subsection (1) to monitoring includes the monitoring by ethnic origin of individuals receiving health care.'.

No. 172, in clause 20, page 24, line 6, at end insert—
'(c) the function of assessing equality of access to treatment within the NHS of persons of different race, gender and age, of reporting on any such inequalities which it considers inappropriate and of making recommendations for their elimination.'.

No. 81, in page 24, line 18, at end insert—
'(1A) Appropriate arrangements shall be made with a view to securing that the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equal opportunity for all people.'.

No. 79, in schedule 1, page 78, line 22, after 'effectiveness', insert 'and equal opportunities'.

No. 82, in schedule 2, page 84, line 5, after 'year', insert
', and such a report shall include an assessment of performance in relation to equality of opportunity'.

Mr. Hughes: Just so you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and colleagues know, our plan is that, because we are now subject to the guillotine, we
have literally just over an


hour, and there are 22 groups of amendments that we would have liked to have got through. The first seven are led by new clauses that have been tabled by my hon. Friends and me. We hope to take a few minutes at most on any of the amendments, allowing time for a ministerial reply and for participation by our Conservative colleagues. We will divide on the important ones if ministerial replies are not adequate.
The issue is to do with discrimination in the health service. The straightforward proposition in new clause 7 is that there should be a review to examine and to make recommendations about ending such discrimination. All sorts of discrimination exist. Age discrimination is a recurrent issue and, until recently, people have been turned down for treatment because of their old age. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has persistently raised that issue in the House. Disability, race, sex and sexual orientation discrimination impact in two respects—on treatment and on staffing.
We have health inequality in Britain. It is often the people at the lowest end of the income scale—the poorest people in our society—who include those from minority ethnic communities, who do not receive as good health treatment as others. In relation to staff, persistent problems relate to the fact that some people—again, often from minority communities—find they do not get the same opportunities for promotion or for advancement in the health service as others.
At the top end of the staffing complement, the problem of discrimination relates to consultants. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that people who are black or Asian—often it is black people—have difficulty in getting senior posts. At the bottom end, that discrimination affects other posts.
The new clause and amendments simply follow up the debate in the Lords, which was led by my noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones, and the debate in the Standing Committee in the House, which was led by my hon. Friends. On both occasions the Government supported the principle behind our argument, but said, "Hang on. We need to look into things." We have tried to be constructive in response to that because we accept that there may be a need for information. The new clause simply says that if the Government are not willing to include a non-discrimination clause, they should at least set up an independent review. We need that because it is not provided in current NHS legislation or legislation dating back to the 1940s. There is regular Government resistance to placing non-discrimination provisions in legislation. It happened on the Greater London Authority Bill and it has happened again now.
The insertion of our new clause would bite on clause 2, which is about discrimination in primary care trusts. We believe that the primary care trusts now being set up should exercise their function with an explicit duty of non-discrimination. They will be a formal part of the health service and that duty should be written into their constitution. Amendment No. 79 to schedule I would have the primary care trusts report on their non-discrimination policy. Amendment No. 80 to clause 18 would provide a duty on the health service to monitor quality by ethnic origin. It is important to ensure that all ethnic groups receive equally good health care.
Amendment No. 83, also to clause 18, seeks to ensure non-discrimination in the exercise of the duty of quality. Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 relate to the Commission for Health Improvement—CHIMP—which is a body being set up by the Government and which we welcome in general terms. A mechanism for health improvement should function according to the principle of nondiscrimination and there should be a report back on that.
8.30 pm
It is an issue of concern to the Commission for Racial Equality and bodies such as Age Concern. We hope that the Government will see our new clause 7 as a compromise. It says that we should have an independent review so that we can all have the facts and that it should be conducted in the context of the Bill. If the Government are not willing to do that and leave us with the promise of some inquiry at some time, with no certain date to report back and no absolute commitment in the Bill, we shall seek to press new clause 7 to a Division.

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has referred to problems of discrimination in the national health service in terms of employment and treatment. I intend to address the issue of discrimination in treatment because I believe that there is adequate legislation in place and adequate institutions in this country to deal with discrimination in employment. That does not mean that I am complacent about the effectiveness of those institutions in relation to the national health service, but my hon. Friends and I do not feel that the issue is necessarily appropriate for primary legislation. The Minister has an arsenal of weaponry at his disposal and the Secretary of State has already made it clear that he considers this to be an important issue and we support him in that.
As I understand its wording, new clause 7 offers a one-off approach to discrimination. It requires an independent review and a single report of its recommendations. It is a rather indiscriminate approach to the problem of discrimination. Unlike amendments Nos. 78 and 83, also tabled by the Liberal Democrats, there is no concept in new clause 7 of distinguishing between discrimination which is clinically justified and pejorative discrimination which is not and cannot be justified.
The Conservative party's approach to the problem of discrimination in treatment is enshrined in amendment No. 178. Rather than tabling a new clause, for tactical reasons we have sought to address the problem by amending the Bill. That seems a better way of dealing with an issue if it is possible to do so. Our amendment would make it one of the functions of CHIMP to assess equality of access. It would place a duty on it to make recommendations. That would be a permanent duty—a continuing process. Amendment No. 172 clearly acknowledges the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate discrimination.
Equality of access to treatment, at least in theory, is or was—until the Secretary of State's recent decision on Viagra—one of the fundamental principles of our national health service. I said last night in the debate that I believe strongly that the Government have crossed the Rubicon with the proposed rationing arrangements—or limitation on availability, as the Minister would prefer to call it—for Viagra.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, the issue was debated in another place, and Baroness Hayman said that she would give further consideration to the amendments tabled in the other place. She also said that the Government would investigate the best way of taking "the points forward". Although I accept that the Government may determine that the best way of taking those points forward is not in primary legislation, as far as I am aware we have not yet heard anything from them about the outcome of their deliberations after that commitment was made by Baroness Hayman. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the current state of the Government's thinking on the matter.
It seems to us that discrimination in itself presents a problem for the Government, because of the inevitable link to the problem of rationing—the taboo word. Clearly, there should be no discrimination on the grounds of a patient's race, for example, when there is no clinically justifiable reason for such discrimination. It is equally obvious that there will be occasions when it would be absurd not to discriminate on grounds of gender or race in seeking to design appropriate screening programmes, for example, in which one should consider groups at risk and, inevitably, exercise some form of discrimination. We must be careful, therefore, not to fall into the trap of thinking of discrimination only in its pejorative sense.
In considering the problem, and in the context of the overall limits on resources available for health care delivery, I wonder what it means to say, "There should be no discrimination on the grounds of sex unless it is clinically justifiable." The point is directly connected to the question that I asked the Minister in the previous debate on the cost-effectiveness of treatments for a single condition, the cost-effectiveness of treatments for different conditions, and on a comparison of the two. What would a direction against discrimination on grounds of sex tell us, for example, about the allocation of resources to the diagnosis of breast cancer or of prostate cancer?
Within an overall resource constraint, enhancing a service provided to one person inevitably will involve curtailing a service provided to another. We seek, and have always sought, to ensure that that should be done by a rational process, eliminating discrimination in its pejorative sense—as irrational and unjustified discrimination—and ensuring that there is transparency in prioritisation and resource allocation.
If the Government were to admit both the existence of and continuing need for rationing in the national health service—so that we could have a mature debate about the criteria by which resources should be allocated, and the proper discrimination that should be introduced, when appropriate, in allocating health care resources—we should be able to evaluate objectively the competing claims of different treatments and of people with different conditions for limited health care resources. We might then have a clinically credible system for prioritising access to health care.
I tell the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and some other Liberal Democrats Members—such as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has been very concerned about the issue of age discrimination—that I believe that it is perfectly possible that a clinically credible system for prioritising access to health care would prioritise treatment for an otherwise healthy 30-year-old above the same treatment

for an 80-year-old who was in generally poor health. In other words, I suspect that any clinically credible system would, or might, include an element of discrimination on age grounds. However, such discrimination would have to be clinically justified and justifiable, and I should like it to be done transparently and openly.

Sir Robert Smith: I caution the hon. Gentleman against being trapped into stereotypes. Research has shown that those beyond a certain age have a statistically greater ability to survive some treatments than younger people, who have yet to be hit by a range of illnesses. People who do not survive those illnesses will not reach an older age. It is important that there is no prejudice in that clinical judgment.

Mr. Hammond: I accept the hon. Gentleman's words of caution. The issue is not just the ability to survive a treatment. When considering the allocation of health care resources to different priorities, Ministers, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or whoever is responsible will want to consider what benefit the patient will accrue from the treatment as well as the cost. Such a consideration may introduce legitimate and clinically justifiable discrimination on the grounds of age in certain circumstances. I raise that issue to distinguish between discrimination in the pejorative, everyday sense and discrimination that is backed by clinically justifiable reasoning.
If the Government overcame their taboo on talking about rationing we could address the issues. We would find that part of the debate about discrimination, particularly age discrimination, merged into the debate on rationing. We would then be able to identify the discrimination in the system—I accept that there is some unjustifiable discrimination—and focus on tackling it. We could do that within the health service structure that the Minister and his colleagues have put in place by imposing a further permanent duty on CHIMP, as proposed in amendment No. 172. I acknowledge that new clause 7 is well meaning, but amendment No. 172 would be a better way to address the problem if primary legislation was considered necessary.

Mr. Denham: Equal opportunities for those who work in the NHS and for those who need its services has been an important and recurring theme in our debates on the Bill in Committee and in another place.
The new clause and amendments pursue that theme in the context of some of the new developments in the Bill: primary care trusts in amendments Nos. 78 and 79; the duty of quality in amendments Nos. 83 and 80; and CHIMP in the other amendments. I have explained why that piecemeal approach to legislation, bolting specific provisions about aspects of equal opportunities on to some parts of the NHS framework, is not the best way forward.
If we are to legislate, we should address the NHS in the round. However, such an approach requires careful consideration and would need to look beyond the NHS, taking account of developments across Government and the importance of a consistent approach across the range of public services. For example, we are working closely with the Home Office on planning the way forward on race equality in the light of the recommendations of the


Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. On that front, the Race Relations Act 1976 would provide the route for legislative change. Such issues must be taken seriously.
I am happy to reaffirm our commitment that there must be no place in the NHS for discrimination on grounds of age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. That is more than just a statement. We shall continue to scrutinise the NHS's performance against that commitment as an employer and in the service that it offers to patients. I shall set out in a moment the areas in which there has been activity. Looking back over the debates in another place and especially in Committee, it seems that there has been a tendency for the suggestion that we are doing nothing to go unchallenged—that would be my fault—whereas that is clearly not the case.
8.45 pm
The new clause proposes an independent review to consider these issues. I am not sure that such a review is the right next step; indeed, there is a real risk of putting practical action on hold while efforts are diverted to support what would inevitably be a massive and all-embracing review. Equal opportunities and work against discrimination must be embedded in our total way of working, rather than being treated as a separate and one-off activity. What matters is that our total programme for the national health service should reflect the drive to eliminate discrimination and promote equal opportunities that has been the theme of this short debate.
Let me outline some of the steps that we are taking. On employment, our human resources framework for the national health service, known as "Working Together", sets action on equality in the workplace as a priority. By April 2000, all local employers will need to have policies and procedures in place to tackle harassment by staff and service users and they must also make progress on family-friendly policies.
We are carefully considering our whole approach to equality following the Macpherson report. We are working with the Home Office and other Departments to ensure a systematic response across Government. Last year we commissioned and published a survey of all national health service trusts in England to examine progress in equal opportunities so that we could establish a base-line against which to measure progress and set targets to raise standards.
Since coming to power, we have launched an NHS-wide development programme, known as "Positively Diverse", which is encouraging recruitment and development of staff from local communities. That has been underpinned by an audit covering about 76,000 staff from the organisations concerned, to provide valuable information about their experience and to help to inform local action plans.
We have signed up the national health service to the Commission for Racial Equality's leadership challenge programme. Forthcoming guidance will cover positive approaches to the employment of disabled people. The national health service is a member of the Employers Forum on Age and two thirds of national health service trusts specifically include age in their equal opportunities policy statement. We intend to publish an equalities

framework document later this year to ensure that equality and diversity are mainstream issues for the national health service. That will be supported by equality indicators so that the activities of the national health service as an employer can be kept under constant review.
Both the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) spoke about access to health care. Action on inequalities is a central theme. We are facing up to inequalities in health. We are the first Government to do so in a long time. We launched the Acheson inquiry on health inequalities, which we shall draw on in the public health White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", which we shall publish shortly.
We are committed to ensuring fair access to consistently high standards of service, in accordance with need. As part of the comprehensive spending review, we commissioned a systematic review of the research into equality of access in the national health service. That research concluded that evidence of systematic discrimination is relatively limited, but that there are some areas of health care in which access has not been equal.
It will not surprise a well-informed gathering this evening that those areas include primary care services in the inner city; mental health services, in which there is evidence of particular problems for black and Asian people with mental health needs; and coronary revascularisation, in which people were less likely to be referred for treatment if they were poorer, older, female, or black or Asian. That work is further evidence of our commitment to understanding the problem and taking action.
Tackling such inequalities is a key issue for the new health action zones, for health improvement programmes and for primary care groups and, in future, trusts, as they begin to look in depth at the needs of their populations and better align their resources with those needs. The first national service frameworks will set national standards for coronary heart disease and mental health and will enable a rigorous approach to tackling inequalities. The next national service framework will cover older people and will of course need to tackle the important question of access to services.
The Commission for Health Improvement will look carefully at the issue of access to health care, within its overall remit for monitoring and supporting the NHS's progress in improving quality of care. I would expect that to be an important theme as the commission reviews action on the national service frameworks, for example, and the development of clinical governance. One issue would be whether groups within the population are receiving the sorts of treatment that the evidence suggests they should. That is an important issue, because fair access is one of the six themes of the NHS performance assessment framework. The framework recognises
that the NHS's contribution must begin by offering fair access to health services in relation to people's need, irrespective of geography, socio-economic group, ethnicity, age or sex".
That is one of the six criteria by which the NHS's performance will be assessed in future.

Mr. Hammond: Given what the Minister has just said, would not accepting amendment No. 172, and thus including a specific duty for CHIMP, send an important and valuable signal?

Mr. Denham: I have considered the amendment carefully, but I concluded that it was not necessary. As I


have said, several of the normal aspects of the commission's work in reviewing the development of clinical governance will require to consider issues of access. That will apply especially to its consideration of the national service frameworks. It would be within the power of the Secretary of State to request the commission to carry out a specific study of access issues, should that be necessary. However, to introduce a standing requirement would be unnecessary in the context of the way in which the commission will work.
We are committed to implementing section 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the NHS and will shortly issue to the NHS a report on that by Disability Matters, including a proposed action programme for the NHS that will be informed by the views of service users as to priorities. We shall also issue a template to help the NHS audit its premises for their accessibility for disabled people. A range of development work is also under way to assist the NHS in making fair access a reality.
I have listed just some of the wide range of action under way. As I have explained, much has already been done to improve our information and understanding about how the NHS treats its staff and about the experience of patients. Equal opportunities is integral to our programmes of modernisation. With equality indicators and the performance assessment framework, we shall be able to track progress more systematically than in the past.
I believe that it is right to concentrate efforts on seeing through that substantial programme of change. In response to the debates in the other place and in Committee we reconsidered the question of legislation as proposed in some of the amendments. I set out earlier why I do not believe that a piecemeal approach to the introduction of legislation is the right approach. A more fundamental approach would need to take into account more important considerations across Government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am listening carefully to the Minister's speech. Is he willing to consider making a start by introducing legislation that would cover all NHS activity? I understand his point about the considerations across Government, but will he consider introducing legislation in the next parliamentary year to ensure that those who felt that they were being discriminated against in NHS treatment would be able to raise that under legislative provision?

Mr. Denham: I always wish to be helpful, but I do not believe that I can make a commitment to bring forward, in the next parliamentary year, legislation such as the hon. Gentleman seeks. As the House will understand, I fear that I could get into deep trouble for making a commitment to introduce any legislation in the next parliamentary year.
At the beginning of my remarks I was careful to set out the difficulty. Use of the Race Relations Act 1976 may be the right response to the Macpherson report, but we need to ensure consistency across Government. We must choose the right legislative approach in connection with other areas of discrimination, and to deal with the NHS specifically would contradict that.
Although a specific review would not be the right way forward, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to keep the performance of the NHS under close

review, in the way that I have described. We shall listen carefully both to those who work in it and those who receive our services.

Mr. Hughes: The NHS is the largest organisation in the country. I do not dispute that the Government's intentions are good, and the Minister has set out their programme of work. Whether that will guarantee sufficiently soon that complaints about unfair treatment can be taken up with some prospect of success remains to be seen. I accept that that is more important in connection with the service provided by the NHS than with the employment that it provides, as other provisions are more effective in that regard.
Because so little time is left, and although I am seriously not happy, I hope that I will be able to speak to the Minister when this debate is out of the way. I shall also ask those of my colleagues who deal with Home Office affairs to meet the Minister's colleagues in the Home Office. I believe that a way forward exists, and that a provision governing the whole of the NHS would be better than one that covers only part of the organisation.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

HEALTH CARE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY SCHEMES

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of every Health Authority and Health Board to prepare, and to consider at least once a year, a report on—

(a) the benefits; and
(b) the practicality

of setting up and funding a health care and efficiency scheme in their area, and every report shall specify those measures that the Authority or Board consider should be taken in order to alleviate fuel poverty in their area.

(2) In subsection (1)—
fuel poverty" means the inability to afford adequate warmth because of the inadequate energy efficiency of a home;
health care and efficiency scheme" means a scheme for enabling or assisting persons suffering from fuel poverty to heat their homes more efficiently.'.—[Sir Robert Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir Robert Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause rehearses a proposal in the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, my private Member's Bill whose Second Reading has been begun but adjourned. Given that that Bill will run out of time, the new clause gives the Minister an opportunity to outline how he will deal with this important matter.
The new clause would help health authorities to implement the results of the pilot schemes that have already been held and to help people who suffer health problems as a result of such factors as damp and poor insulation in their housing. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will set out the Government's approach.
My office and the Department are trying to set up a meeting in connection with my private Member's Bill, which the Department of the Deputy Prime Minister has said it is seeking to improve. Obviously I welcome that, but it is important to hear what the Government intend


to do. Some successful schemes have been carried out, and best practice should apply across the country. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government plan to do that.

9 pm

Mr. Hammond: The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) has been remarkably successful in persuading his colleagues to allow him to put forward his pet project for consideration under the Health Bill. Many hon. Members have followed with interest the progress of the hon. Gentleman's Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill. We all understand that energy efficiency and fuel poverty are important. We must ask, however, whether the Bill is the right way to deal with those problems. Is the national health service budget the correct budget with which to finance solutions?
We all appreciate the benefits that would be derived from energy efficiency. It is ironic, therefore, that the Government claim credit from the rooftops for having reduced VAT on fuel—while anyone who wanted to stimulate energy efficiency and fuel conservation would not conventionally seek to reduce prices.
The difficulty is that the Liberal Democrats appear to propose that we should spread further and more thinly an already overstretched NHS budget. They are fond of telling us that they will deal with the financial consequences of their proposals by adding an extra penny to income tax, but it is clear that that would not even begin to pay for all the problems facing the NHS. If more and more responsibilities are to be included in the NHS remit, it will become even less likely that any Government can conceivably make available a budget capable of dealing with all those responsibilities.
There may well be a link between poorly heated homes and demands for health care. I do not deny that, and I am sure that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine could produce evidence to support that view. However, the link is relatively distant. The hon. Gentleman sought to suggest that the NHS would be making an investment that would save money by reducing demand for health care, but I do not believe that that would work.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that for many of the pilot schemes the investment would amount to no more than the production of leaflets so that the general practitioners could ensure that patients who suffer winter illnesses that are clearly exacerbated by housing conditions could have access to resources already available to other schemes for home improvements? The proposal would mean joined-up Government, linking Departments that provide solutions with Departments that would benefit from them.

Mr. Hammond: If I had thought that the new clause would finance only the production of a few leaflets, I would have felt little need to debate it. I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted rather more substantial intervention.
I do not deny that there is a link between poorly heated, energy inefficient homes and demand for health care. However, the NHS is not equipped to invest in order to

secure reductions in demand, particularly in cases in which no straightforward causal connection is immediately clear. If the NHS had resources for such investment, many direct preventive treatments exist in which it is currently unable to invest. That would bring a quicker and more direct payback to the NHS.
I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman has focused on energy efficiency. Why not focus on diet, suggesting that health authorities should be responsible for subsidising good eating habits? Why not focus on life style, or even on driving technique? It may be possible to make a case that improved driving technique would reduce the health care consequences of road traffic accidents. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) appears to find that extraordinary. He may be right to think that it is stretching the point somewhat.
The NHS budget is faced with so many other demands, with so many patients who cannot get the treatment that they need or want, and with ever growing real waiting lists. People in the real world outside this place would simply not understand our motivation if we spread the limited budget still further and made the NHS responsible for doing things that are no doubt worthy and should be done but are not its proper responsibility.
The NHS must focus its effort. It is struggling to do its job—even the Minister would not deny that. It is an uphill struggle to meet the rising tide of expectation for health care. The Liberal Democrats appear to want to divert resources that are already inadequate to meet the demand to what should be another remit altogether.
The Government's position is interesting. Various Ministers and Labour Members have made their position on the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill clear. The Under-Secretary of State for Health said that he supports the aims expressed in the early-day motion, which more than 100 Labour Back Benchers have signed. He did not sign it, of course, but he wrote to constituents expressing his support.

Sir Robert Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Conservative Members also supported that Bill?

Mr. Hammond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, but he should be cautious. He will recall that in Committee he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who was then shadow Minister of State for Health, of having offered the Opposition's support for the Bill during its passage. Having checked the record, the hon. Gentleman was forced to withdraw that remark.
The Minister for Public Health also apparently supported the moves that the hon. Gentleman introduced in his Bill, in a speech to her constituents, so I will be interested to find out the Government's position, not on the wisdom of introducing energy efficiency measures or even the link between energy efficiency in homes and demand for health care, but on the crucial issue raised by the new clause: should responsibility for insulating people's homes—ensuring that they have energy efficient homes—be taken on by the Department of Health and bodies within the NHS in addition to the huge burdens that they already carry? They have their work cut out; they do not need any additional burdens.

Mr. Denham: I recognise the concern that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) expressed about fuel poverty and its impact on health. The Government take that matter seriously.


I shall explain why the action that the Government are taking nationally, coupled with the framework for local action now offered by health improvement programmes, offer the right way forward. It is important to clarify the Government's position and the suggestion that the Deputy Prime Minister supported the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill. I am advised that, on 26 May, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who had put the original question. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that the Government were not able to support the Health Care and Energy Efficiency Bill, so it would be a little wrong to suggest that we were attempting to improve the Bill of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
In relation to what the Government have done, we have, of course, reduced value added tax on fuel and on energy saving materials so that people can more easily afford to keep warm and insulate their homes. We realise that many pensioners currently face particular difficulties; that is why in the March Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an increase, from this winter, in the annual winter fuel payment to £100 for more than 7 million pensioner households. That is also why the minimum income guarantee was introduced through income support from April this year. We have released substantial additional funds to help to improve our housing stock; in total, about £5 billion is being made available over the lifetime of this Parliament for investment in housing.
In addition, we set up a review across Government of policy on fuel poverty, which included discussions with more than 60 organisations that are expert in that field. Last month, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), published our proposals for action in the document "Fuel Poverty: The New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme". The Government have invited views on those proposals and we aim to have the new programme in place by April 2000. With the additional £150 million made available following the comprehensive spending review last year, the new home energy efficiency scheme will have a total budget of nearly £300 million for the first two years. An important body of national action is already well under way.
In relation to the scope for local action, clauses 26 to 32 of the Bill establish a framework for equally wide-ranging action on inequalities at local level. In particular, clause 28 requires a health improvement programme to be prepared in every area. Clauses 29 to 31 introduce new flexibility as to funding and operational arrangements at the boundary between the NHS and local authorities, where that will help to promote the health of local communities.
Health improvement programmes bring together all parts of the NHS, local government, local communities and their representatives, local employers, businesses, schools, and so on, to develop and implement plans to improve local health and health care. The programmes are not merely about improving services; they will also involve broadly based action to tackle the wider determinants of ill health. Although a contributor—possibly a substantial one—to health improvement programmes will be the NHS itself, not all the actions identified for a health improvement programme will be

funded or developed by the NHS. Other partners, especially local authorities, will play an important role—as will voluntary bodies.
I resist the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that we should try to maintain some sort of Berlin wall between the part of the health service that treats ill people and the action taken by the NHS and other partners to try to tackle the causes of ill health. Of course it is important to use money efficiently and effectively; however, I do not accept the absolute separation that the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest. He will know from our debates in Committee that we believe that the health improvement programme and the new flexibility between the health service and local authorities introduced by the Bill are extremely important. They will enable new forms of joint action. There will be increased scope for funding transfers between the NHS and local authorities—not only across the boundaries between the NHS and social services, but on a wider front in matters such as housing, where that will best advance local health and well-being. There will be new ways of working together—through pooling budgets, for example.

Mr. Hammond: I have listened to the Minister's remarks. Does he not think, however, that there will be great difficulty in explaining to the public why waiting lists are getting longer, why more treatments are ceasing to be available, and why the NHS is not allowed to prescribe drugs, if he is seen to be diverting resources from the provision of treatment for people who need it to long-term solutions that are one step removed from the immediate health care agenda?

Mr. Denham: That very much depends on the type of intervention and the use of money involved. Let me give the hon. Gentleman an example—one of which, I confess, I became aware only when preparing for the debate—so the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine can think that he has achieved something. From my knowledge of the case, it appears to be a reasonable use of resources by a health authority, although it will obviously have to be compared with others.
The scheme was run by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority and involved a grant of £300,000 being made to councils to fund central heating and insulation improvements in homes occupied by families with children who suffer from asthma. The health authority took the view that the poor health of the children selected was directly connected to the cold, damp houses in which they lived. The improved homes housed 108 children suffering from asthma. Provisional results for 71 children show that, before the improvement, 68 children slept in an unheated bedroom and 43 in a damp or mouldy bedroom; those numbers fell to three and 15 respectively. Significantly, there was an improvement in the respiratory symptoms suffered by the children with asthma and a significant reduction in the number of school days they lost because of asthma.
I have not studied the scheme or assessed it for myself, but I should not like to rule out intervention of a sort that not only brought noticeable benefits to the children in health terms, but that, by reducing the number of school days lost due to asthma, helped to tackle some of the


consequences of ill health. In our programmes to tackle social exclusion, the Government try to join up such factors. If children cannot go to school because they are too ill, they are less likely to get a good job; they are more likely to be ill because of unemployment and so more likely to add to the costs of the health service.
Everyone involved will have to consider how to use funds prudently. Health improvement programmes involve health authorities and local authorities, which have their own capital resources and which benefit from the release of capital receipts. I hope that that framework will enable the creation of partnerships that identify which organisation is best able to invest, because it seems to me that interventions of the sort I have described can bring significant benefits. A scheme in Birmingham focused on improving the heating and insulation of homes to reduce occupants' risk of ill health and hypothermia. The scheme was targeted on people who were recipients of benefit and who were at risk of hospital admission; they were referred by their GPs, who advised directly on the likely health gains.
The new flexibilities the Bill will allow will make it easier to support staff working at the interface between health and housing, and help health authorities and local authorities to respond to the needs of local people in the round. They will enable the NHS and local authorities to think more inventively, to develop innovative solutions to long-standing problems and to use local resources in new and imaginative ways. Local action on the wider determinants of ill health might cover a wide range of issues, including fuel poverty; housing and the environment; action such as the sure start initiative, which brings health, social services and education together to give young people a better start in life; and access to good and affordable food.
My reason for directing the hon. Gentleman's attention to health improvement programmes rather than accepting the specific measures that he proposes is that an important principle of the health improvement programme approach is that it should combine concerted action on national priorities with a focus on the most pressing local concerns. The scale and impact of fuel poverty is likely to vary from area to area: an area with a large elderly population and poor housing might want to give the issue very high priority; in other areas, fuel poverty might be a lower priority for the health improvement programme.
It is right that there should be local flexibility, so I see no case for prescribing a mandatory annual review process to tackle fuel poverty alone. I point out that, if this were to become a matter of such overwhelming importance that universal action was required across the health service, clause 28 allows the Secretary of State to issue directions about the matters to be dealt with by health improvement programmes and their form and content.
It is encouraging to see the enthusiasm with which local partners are already responding to the challenge of improving health and tackling inequalities. I have provided some relevant local examples already. I believe we are right to allow local flexibility of approach, and I do not believe the case has been made for mandatory local reports on energy efficiency matters—still less that those reports should be repeated annually. While I recognise and respect the hon. Gentleman's commitment to action

on fuel poverty, I hope hon. Members will agree that the Government have introduced the correct framework for national and local action and that new clause 8 is neither necessary nor appropriate.

Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Minister for that response. Conservative Members should examine the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly scheme. If my briefing is correct, that scheme was established in 1995–96—so there was a time when people recognised the need to break the cycle of ill health. We must not believe that we can never step outside the health service to tackle the causes of illness. We must recognise the causes if we are to break the cycle of despair about ill health that is putting such a drain on our health service. If the Minister becomes aware of health schemes, he will monitor their conduct. He will ensure that they deliver and that the quality of the nation's health improves.
I recognise that we are about to discuss other important issues, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

HEALTH AND SAFETY OF NHS DOCTORS

'In paragraph 6(2) of schedule 2 to the National Health Service and Community Care Act, 1990, after subparagraph (f), there is inserted—
(g) the duty to implement safe working patterns for all doctors in the training grades, including—

(i) abiding by nationally agreed maximum average hours of duty, minimum periods of rest between duty periods and continuous periods off duty, and
(ii) allowing sufficient time for appropriate training, formal education and study.".'—[Dr. Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Harris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 28—Regulation of doctors' working hours—
'The Secretary of State shall, prior to 31st March in each year, make regulations which shall have effect from the following 1st January for a period of twelve months, laying down—

(a) the maximum average number of—

(i)working hours, and
(ii)on call hours

that may be worked by hospital doctors in the training grades;

(b) the maximum average number of—

(i) working hours, and
(ii) on-call hours

that may be worked by hospital consultants; and

(c) a definition of "working hours" and "on-call hours" for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) above.'.

Amendment No. 180, in clause 18, page 23, line 23, at end insert—

'(1A) It is the duty of each Health Authority, PCT and NHS trust to put and keep in place arrangements for ensuring the safety and health of staff and patients.

(1B) In pursuance of the duty defined in subsection (1A) above each body shall prepare, publish and implement a plan to reduce to a safe level the hours worked by doctors in training grades and shall review the implementation of that plan annually and publish the result of that review.'.

Dr. Harris: These important new clauses go to the heart of what the health service is about. They address the


problem of junior doctors' hours of work and adequate rest and training. We have also chosen to table an amendment that seeks to place a duty upon the health service in line with its health and safety requirements. The hours worked by junior doctors affect not only their own health and safety but that of patients who are in endangered by inexperienced, over-tired doctors. The well-being of inexperienced junior doctors is threatened by the length of time that they are asked to work and the intensity of that work, which is often undertaken at extremely unsocial hours.
The basis of this new clause is unarguable. It is important that patients and staff are protected from bad working conditions. The Government are failing in their efforts to reduce the hours worked by junior doctors. We must look after our health service workers. An earlier group of new clauses that we have not had time to discuss pointed to huge staff shortages in certain medical specialties. That is due partly to the low morale of junior doctors who choose to forsake the NHS for other areas of medicine and to pursue areas of professional practice other than medicine—often in other countries. The evidence is clear from research collected in Oxford and elsewhere and from polls of doctors.
Something must be done because the status quo is not adequate. By legislating in this area, the Government would stress to the health service that this issue must be a top priority. If they do not address this problem, the Government's other objectives will be unattainable. It is inadequate for the Government to respond by saying that the need to protect the NHS from a shortage of junior doctors means that it will take another nine years to implement a new deal that was agreed nearly nine years ago. One way to guarantee that there will be a shortage of junior doctors is to fail to tackle that problem.
Many hon. Members and most people in the country would agree that 56 hours work at the coal face is far too much, yet that is what we are asking of inexperienced junior doctors.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: No, I shall not. I know of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter because he went through that training too, but other hon. Members want to speak and we have only seven minutes before the debate will be guillotined.
It is critical that we recognise that even 56 hours of work are too many and that the rest periods—which are such an important part of the new deal that now seems like an old deal—are implemented as quickly as possible.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is pressed for time, so I shall be brief. Does he accept that health and safety considerations are a particular reason why the Government should now legislate to restrict junior doctors' hours to an acceptable maximum? The health service is increasingly afflicted by claims of negligence and inadequate performance by its professional staff. The best way immediately to reduce the number of claims would be to prevent the risk of them arising by reducing doctors' hours.

Dr. Harris: That is absolutely right. In purely financial terms, the costs of litigation alone must mean that it is a

false economy to work junior doctors so hard for so long, let alone the costs of training doctors who leave the NHS, often because of health concerns arising from overwork.
I should also point out that part-time trainees—who work flexibly and often because they have family commitments—work 40 hours a week, and they are paid at half-rate for many of those hours. Not only are their hours much longer than most people would consider to be part-time, but they are paid less for their work.
It is important that the Government accept the new clause because they are faced with the results of a ballot of junior doctors who, it would appear from the polls that have been taken, are intent on taking industrial action. I became a junior doctor in 1991, and laboured under the worst excesses of the previous Government. Morale was pretty bad at times then, but I never knew of a situation such as this, in which, according to some polls, 95 per cent. of junior doctors would consider industrial action.
That is not to say that the Government are failing in this area more than the previous Government did, but this Government raised expectations enormously, to the extent that when the then Minister first appeared before a junior doctors' conference, a few of them were naive enough to give him a welcoming ovation. A Minister would not now dare to put his foot in the door of the British Medical Association when the junior doctors committee was meeting there, for fear of endangering his safety.
The Minister has to act quickly; otherwise he will find that junior doctors not only vote with their feet to realise their career intentions outside the NHS, but vote to take industrial action. None of us wants that to happen.
I am conscious that time is short, but I want to make one more point. I have been a junior doctor within recent memory, and I know that there is nothing more fearful and stressful for a junior doctor than being tired and inexperienced and faced with the responsibility of looking after scores of patients at night. The Minister must not regard lightly the effect on junior doctors of years and years of such stress. They thought at first that salvation was at hand, but now find that not only have the Government done nothing to tackle the problem, but they have gone behind their backs to the Council of Ministers in Europe, seeking to increase their maximum working hours.
The Government's record on this matter is one of failure to implement the existing deal, of neglect of junior doctors' health and that of the patients whom they look after, and of letting down junior doctors by negotiating in Europe, behind their backs, longer working hours and a longer period in which to reduce those hours. On that basis, I urge the House to support the new clause.

Mr. Denham: I have just a couple of minutes to make it clear that we are firmly committed to improving junior doctors' working and living conditions under the new deal. In reaffirming that commitment, we have promised to fund the regional task force for as long as it is needed.
It is wrong for the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to say that we have failed. We introduced tough new standards last December to safeguard the quality of rest that juniors get. As expected, that has had a significant effect on the level of compliance with the revised new deal target. I shall say more about that in a moment.
We have issued guidance whereby the postgraduate deans will approve posts as suitable for doctors in training only if trusts are working with task forces to ensure compliance with national controls and if they are providing acceptable living conditions. We are also committed to improvements in catering and accommodation for junior doctors. We are working closely with the medical profession and NHS managers to promote higher standards in those areas.

Mr. Hammond: rose—

Mr. Denham: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon raised some important points, to which I want to respond in the short time available to me. He tabled the lead new clause, and he has the right to a reply. It is not my fault that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) did not get his act together, although he now claims to speak for junior doctors.
I acknowledge that there are concerns among junior doctors. I met junior doctors last week—the second time that I have met them. We had constructive discussions. It was not a fearful meeting at all. There are issues that we want to continue to discuss with them, and one of those is continuing progress on the new deal.
The tougher standards for rest breaks that we introduced last December with the agreement of junior doctors do not mean that any doctors are necessarily working any longer. They mean that the quality of the rest period is higher. The way in which compliance is assessed has been agreed by all the signatories to the new deal, including the junior doctors committee.
We accept that there remain—

It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Allocation of Time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 337.

Division No. 207]
[9.32 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cable, Dr Vincent


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Amess, David



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chidgey, David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baker, Norman
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)



Bercow, John
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Cotter, Brian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Brady, Graham
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brake, Tom
Day, Stephen


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel


Browning, Mrs Angela
Faber, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fallon, Michael


Burnett, John
Fearn, Ronnie


Burstow, Paul
Flight, Howard


Butterfill, John
Forsythe, Clifford





Foster, Don (Bath)
Öpik, Lembit


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ottaway, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Page, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Paterson, Owen


Gibb, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Gill, Christopher
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Rendel, David


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)



Grieve, Dominic
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hammond, Philip
St Aubyn, Nick


Hancock, Mike
Sanders, Adrian


Harris, Dr Evan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Harvey, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Soames, Nicholas



Horam, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Spring, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Steen, Anthony


Keetch, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Key, Robert
Stunell, Andrew


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swayne, Desmond


Kirkwood, Archy
Syms, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Letwin, Oliver
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Tyler, Paul


Livsey, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Walter, Robert


Loughton, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Webb, Steve



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Whittingdale, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Madel, Sir David
Willis, Phil


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maples, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Yeo, Tim


May, Mrs Theresa
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)



Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Tellers for the Ayes: Sir Robert Smith and Mr. Michael Moore.


Nicholls, Patrick



Oaten, Mark





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainger, Nick
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Alexander, Douglas
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Berry, Roger


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Best, Harold


Ashton, Joe
Betts, Clive


Atherton, Ms Candy
Blackman, Liz


Atkins, Charlotte
Blears, Ms Hazel


Barnes, Harry
Blizzard, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Battle, John
Boateng, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Borrow, David


Beard, Nigel
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Begg, Miss Anne
Bradshaw, Ben






Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foulkes, George


Browne, Desmond
Galloway, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gilroy, Mrs Unda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Lin


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hain, Peter



Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clelland, David
Healey, John


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoey, Kate


Cousins, Jim
Hood, Jimmy


Cranston, Ross
Hoon, Geoffrey


Crausby, David
Hope, Phil


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cummings, John
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Howells, Dr Kim


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darvill, Keith
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Dawson, Hilton
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Denham, John
Jenkins, Brian


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank



Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Drew, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Edwards, Huw
Keeble, Ms Sally


Efford, Clive
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Ennis, Jeff
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Fisher, Mark
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kidney, David


Flint, Caroline
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Follett, Barbara
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)





Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Laxton, Bob
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooney, Terry


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Roy, Frank


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert



McIsaac, Shona
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Merron, Gillian
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mudie, George
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Timms, Stephen


Norris, Dan
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Trickett, Jon


Olner, Bill
Truswell, Paul


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Derek (Halfon)


Pendry, Tom
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pickthall, Colin
Vaz, Keith


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Joan


Plaskitt, James
Ward, Ms Claire


Pond, Chris
Wareing, Robert N


Pope, Greg
Watts, David


Pound, Stephen
White, Brian


Powell, Sir Raymond
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wills, Michael


Quinn, Lawrie
Winnick, David


Radice, Giles
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)






Wise, Audrey
Wyatt, Derek


Wood, Mike



Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Graham Allen.


Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Question accordingly negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 5

PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS: PROVISION OF SERVICES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 8, line 32, after 'services' insert '(including accommodation)'.

No. 8, in page 8, line 44, after 'accommodation' insert 'or services'.

No. 9, in page 8, line 47, at end insert 'or services'.

No. 10, in page 9, line 4, after 'accommodation' insert 'or services'.

No. 11, in page 9, leave out line 17.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 9

INDEMNITY COVER FOR PART II SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 13, line 23, after 'below', insert 'and".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 10

REMUNERATION FOR PART II SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 15, line 5, leave out from 'he' to end of line 10 and insert—

'(a) shall consult a body appearing to him to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate, and
(b) may consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.'.

No. 14, in page 15, line 18, leave out 'revised' and insert 'varied'.

No. 15, in page 16, line 39, leave out 'revocation or revision' and insert 'or revocation'.

No. 16, in page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 11

LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEES

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 17, line 15, leave out from 'area;' to 'the' in line 16 and insert—

'(b) those medical practitioners and the deputy medical practitioners for that area; or

(c) the medical practitioners mentioned in—

(i) paragraph (a) above; or
(ii) paragraph (b) above,.

and'

No. 95, in page 17, line 23, leave out from 'area;' to 'the' in line 24 and insert—

'(b) those dental practitioners and the deputy dental practitioners for that area; or

(c) the dental practitioners mentioned in—

(i) paragraph (a) above; or
(ii) paragraph (b) above,

and'.

No. 96, in page 17, line 31 leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 18 and insert—

'"(3) For the purposes of this section and section 45 below, a person who meets the condition in subsection (4) below—

(a) is deputy medical practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a medical practitioner who assists a medical practitioner providing general medical services in that area in the provision of those services but is not himself in a list;
(b) is a section 28C medical practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a medical practivioner who provides or performs personal medical services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C above by the Health Authority (whether with himself or another);
(c) is a deputy dental practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a dental practitioner who assists a dental practitioner providing general dental services in that area in the provision of those services but is not himself on a list;
(d) is a section 28C dental practitioner for the area of a Health Authority if he is a dental practitioner who provides or performs personal dental services in accordance with arrangements made under section 28C above by the Health Authority (whether with himself or another).

(4) The condition referred to in subsection (3) above is that the person concerned has notified the Health Authority that he wishes to be represented under this section by the appropriate committee for their area (and has not notified them that he wishes to cease to be so represented).

(5) For the purposes of subsection (3) above—

(a) a person is to be treated as assisting a medical practitioner or dental practitioner in the provision of services if he is employed by that practitioner for that purpose or if he acts as his deputy in providing those services; and
(b) "list" has the same meaning as in section 46 below.".'.

No. 97, in page 18, line 14, leave out '44(A1)(b) or (B1)(b)' and insert 144(A1)(c) or (B1)(c)'.

No. 98, in page 18, line 21, leave out 'section 44(A1)(b) or (B1)(b)' and insert
'subsection (A1)(b) or (c) or (B1)(b) or (c) of section 44'.

No. 99, in page 18, line 23, leave out from 'attributable' to end of line 25 and insert '—

(a) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (A1)(b) or (c)(ii) of that section, to the deputy medical practitioners for the area;
(b) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (A1)(c) of that section, to the section 28C medical practitioners for the area;
(c) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (B1)(b) or (c)(ii) of that section, to the deputy dental practitioners for the area;
(d) in the case of a committee recognised under subsection (B1)(c) of that section, to the section 28C dental practitioners for the area.'.

No. 100, in page 18, line 30, at end insert 'deputy medical practitioners,'.

No. 101, in page 18, line 31, after first 'practitioners' insert 'deputy dental practitioners'.

No. 102, in page 18, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert 'each such practitioner'.

No. 103, in page 18, line 44, leave out from second 'to' to end of line 46 and insert
'any practitioners mentioned in that subsection.".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 12

DIRECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 19, line 44, leave out '45(2) or (3)' and insert '45(1C) to (4)'.

No. 17, in page 20, line 6, at end insert—
'or a function referred to in section 28EE(1)(a) to (d) below'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 13

ESTABLISHMENT ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 21, line 43, at end insert—
'( ) In paragraph 16(2) of that Schedule (general powers of NHS trusts), for "which is owned and managed" there is substituted "at or from which services are provided".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 14

EXERCISE OF POWERS

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 22, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'be' in line 9 and insert—
'For section 5(9) of the 1990 Act (restrictions on exercise of certain powers) there is substituted—
(9) A power conferred by paragraph 14 or 15 of Part II of Schedule 2 to this Act may only".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 19

THE COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 23, line 36, leave out 'section 20' and insert 'sections 20 to 22'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 20

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 24, line 37, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 28

PLANS FOR IMPROVING HEALTH ETC.

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 32, line 12, leave out subsection (10).—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 33

POWERS RELATING TO VOLUNTARY SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 36, line 13, leave out '(5)' and insert '(4)'.

No. 24, in page 36, line 17, leave out
'in the opinion of the Secretary of State'.

No. 25, in page 36, line 21, leave out from 'may' to end of line 22 and insert
'by a written notice given to the scheme member determine that the scheme is not to apply to him'.

No. 26, in page 36, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'has' and insert
'A notice under subsection (4) must give the Secretary of State's reasons for giving the notice; and the Secretary of State may not give a notice under that subsection until he'.

No. 27, in page 36, leave out lines 25 to 27.

No. 28, in page 36, line 30, after 'may' insert
'after consultation with the industry body'.[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 34

POWER TO CONTROL PRICES

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 37, line 6, leave out from 'limit' to third 'to' in line 7.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 35

STATUTORY SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 37, line 29, leave out from 'scheme' to first 'to' in line 30.

No. 31, in page 37, line 35, leave out from 'scheme' to third 'to' in line 36.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 38

CONTROLS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 39, line 23, leave out subsection (2).

No. 33, in page 39, line 31, after 'limiting' insert
'by reference to the prices or profits which would be reasonable in all the circumstances—
( )'.

No. 34, in page 39, line 31, after 'or' insert—
'( )'.

No. 35, in page 39, line 33, after 'supply' insert
'for the purposes of the health service'.

No. 36, in page 39, line 33, leave out from 'medicines' to end of line 34.

No. 37, in page 40, leave out line 2.

No. 38, in page 40, line 3, leave out from 'service"' to end of line 4 and insert
'means any of the health services within the meaning of the 1977 Act, the 1978 Act or the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 39

EVASION OF CHARGES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 43, line 48, at end insert—
'(8) Subsection (4) of section 122A above applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 44

POWER TO RECTIFY TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 51, line 46, leave out & 61(2)(a)' and insert & 61(2)'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 57

REMUNERATION FOR PART II SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 62, leave out lines 8 to 13 and insert—

'(a) shall consult a body appearing to him to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate, and
(b) may consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.'.

No. 41, in page 62, line 21, leave out 'revised' and insert 'varied'.

No. 42, in page 63, line 38, leave out 'revocation or revision' and insert 'or revocation'.

No. 43, in page 64, line 5, leave out subsection (4).— [Mr. Denham.]

Clause 61

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 72, leave out lines 30 to 34 and insert—

'(1A) Directions under section 20 or 28 or Schedule 2, or by virtue of section 38(1)(b), are to be given by an instrument in writing.

(1B) Any such directions may be varied or revoked by subsequent directions under, or by virtue of, the same provision.

(2) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 126 of the 1977 Act (supplementary provisions about subordinate legislation) apply in relation to any power conferred by this Act to make Orders in Council, orders or regulations, or to give directions mentioned in subsection (1A), as they apply in relation to the powers which may be exercised as mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) of that section'.

No. 45, in page 72, line 35, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert
'subsection (4) of that section'.

No. 46, in page 72, line 36, after & 31' insert
'or an Order in Council under section (English and Scottish border provisions)'.

No. 47, in page 73, line 14, at end insert—

'( ) No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under section (English and Scottish border provisions) unless a draft—

(a) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament, and
(b) has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 63

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—

'( ) "NHS trust" has the same meaning—

(a) in Part I of this Act as in the 1977 Act,
(b) in Part II of this Act as in the 1978 Act.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 65

DEVOLUTION

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 73, line 35, at end insert
'but this subsection does not apply to section 22.'.

No. 50, in page 73, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 74 and insert—

'(2) The power of a Minister of the Crown under section 66 to appoint a day for any of the following provisions to come into force in relation to Wales—

(a) sections 1 to 8, 10 to 18 and Schedule 1,
(b) sections 26 to 32,
(c) section 64(1) and Schedule 4, so far as concerns the following provisions of that Schedule: paragraphs 1 to 15, 22 to 25, 26(a), 27 to 34, 36, 37 (except sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (d)), 38, 39, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74(b), 75 to 78, 79 (except sub-paragraph (2)(b)), 81, 82, 83 (except sub-paragraph (2)(a)) and 85 to 88,

is exercisable instead by the National Assembly for Wales.

(3) In Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 (bodies and offices covered by section 74), after paragraph 12 there is inserted—
12A. The Commission for Health Improvement".

(4) The National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 is amended as follows; and those amendments are to have effect as if made by an Order in Council under section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (transfer of Ministerial functions).

(5) In Schedule 1—

(a) in the entry for the 1977 Act, after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
(cc) section 43C;
(ccc) sections 46 to 49E",

(b) at the end of the entry for the 1990 Act, there is inserted—
The references above to paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 are references to that paragraph before the amendments made by section 17 of the Health Act 1999.
The Treasury consent requirement under paragraph 8 of that Schedule (inserted by Schedule 4 to the Health Act 1999), so far as relating to the matters referred to in paragraph (b) of that paragraph, shall continue in effect",

(c) after the entry for the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 there is inserted—

"In the Health Act 1999—

(a) Part I and Schedule 4, except sections 20(1), 22 and 33 to 38 and Schedule 2 (other than paragraph 2);
(b) section 62, so far as it relates to any of the provisions which, by virtue of section 65(2), may be brought into force by the Assembly".

(6) In Schedule 2, after the entry for the Audit Commission Act 1998, there is inserted—
Health Act 1999

The functions of the Secretary of State under section 20(1) shall be exercisable only with the agreement of the Assembly.

The functions of the Secretary of State under paragraphs 4 to 7 of Schedule 2 shall be exercisable only after consultation with the Assembly".'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 66

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 74, line 27, at end insert—
'( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to section 65, of which—

(a) subsections (1) and (3) to (6) come into force on the day on which this Act is passed,
(b) subsection (2) comes into force on 1st July 1999 or, if later, the day on which this Act is passed.'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Clause 67

EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 74, line 37, at end insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State may by order provide that so much of this Act as extends to England and Wales is to apply to the Isles of Scilly with such modifications (if any) as are specified in the order; but otherwise this Act does not extend there'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 1

PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 75, line 34, leave out 'any such' and insert 'the'.

No. 54, in page 75, line 35, leave out 'Primary Care Trust' and insert 'authority'—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 2

THE COMMISSION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT

Amendment made: No. 55, in page 84, line 39, leave out paragraph 20.—[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 4

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 87, line 31, at end insert—
'National Health Service Act 1966 (c. 8)
. Section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1966 (modification of prohibition of full-time salaried practitioner service) is omitted (and, accordingly, section 29(4) of the 1977 Act and section 19(3) of the 1978 Act continue to have effect)'.

No. 57, in page 93, line 17, after 'arrangements)' insert '—
( ) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there is inserted—"(ba) Primary Care Trusts,",
( )".

No. 58, in page 93, line 36, leave out from '(4),' to end of line 37 and insert
'for "incidental or supplemental" there is substituted "supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving

No. 59, in page 93, leave out line 38 and insert—
'.—(1) Section 128 (interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)-'.

No. 60, in page 94, line 1, at end insert—
'(3) After that subsection there is inserted—
(1A) So far as is necessary or expedient in consequence of a direction under section 16D or 17A above providing for the exercise by a Health Authority, Special Health Authority or Primary Care Trust of a function exercisable by another person, any reference in any enactment, instrument or other document to that other person is to be read as a reference to the Health Authority, Special Health Authority or Primary Care Trust".'.

No. 61, in page 97, line 36, at end insert—
'. In section 85B(2) (bodies in respect of which schemes for meeting losses and liabilities may be made)—

(a) the "and" after paragraph (c) is omitted,
(b) after paragraph (d) there is inserted "and (e) Special Health Boards".'.

No. 62, in page 97, line 45, leave out from 'directions)' to end of line 46 and insert
'for "incidental or supplemental" there is substituted "supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving".'.
No. 63, in page 98, line 6, at end insert
'( ) in paragraph 16(c), the words from "which purposes shall include" to the end are omitted,'.

No. 64, in page 98, line 43, leave out 'for'.

No. 65, in page 98, line 43, leave out from 'special' to 'services' in line 46 and insert
'hospital" is omitted, after "above)" there is inserted "in a hospital at which high security psychiatric services are provided" and for "other special hospital" there is substituted "other hospital at which those'.

No. 66, in page 98, line 48, leave out from 'for' to 'which' in line 1 on page 99 and insert
'which is not a special hospital" there is substituted "at'.[Mr. Denham.]

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 67, in page 103, line 17, at end insert—


'1966 c. 8.
The National Health Service Act 1966.
Section 10.'.

No. 68, in page 103, line 17, at end insert—


1973 c. 65.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.
In section 97, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), subparagraph (iii), subsection (2A) and in subsection (2B) the definitions of "recognised fund—holding practice" and "allotted sum".'.

No. 69, in page 104, line 20, column 3, at end insert—




'In Schedule 15, paragraph 37. '.

No. 70, in page 104, line 35, column 3, after '6(2),' insert
'in paragraph 16(c) the words from "which purposes shall include" to the end,'.

No. 71, in page 104, line 41, column 3, at end insert—




'In Schedule 16, paragraph 22.'

No. 72, in page 104, line 44, column 3, at end insert—




'In section 123(1), "in a special hospital".'.

No. 73, in page 105, line 40, column 3, after '(d)' insert '34'.

No. 74, in page 105, line 43, at end insert—


'1995 c. 31.
The National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1995
Section 1. Section 2(2). Section 3 Sections 7 and 9'.

No. 75, in page 105, line 53, column 3, leave out second 'and'.

No. 76, in page 105, line 54, column 3, at end insert
'69, 71(4), 77 and 78'.—[Mr. Denham.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Hanson.]

The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 112.

Division No. 208]
[9.46 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chaytor, David


Ainger, Nick
Chidgey, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allan, Richard



Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clelland, David


Baker, Norman
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Coleman, Iain


Beard, Nigel
Colman, Tony


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbett, Robin


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Corston, Ms Jean


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cotter, Brian


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cranston, Ross


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Berry, Roger
Cummings, John


Best, Harold
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Betts, Clive
Dalyell, Tam


Blackman, Liz
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blears, Ms Hazel
Darvill, Keith


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Boateng, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradshaw, Ben

Dean, Mrs Janet


Brake, Tom
Denham, John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dobbin, Jim



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Browne, Desmond
Doran, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dowd, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Burnett, John
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burstow, Paul
Edwards, Huw


Butler, Mrs Christine
Efford, Clive


Cable, Dr Vincent
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Feam, Ronnie


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Fitzpatrick, Jim



Fitzsimons, Loma


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)





Foulkes, George
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Galloway, George
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gapes, Mike
Kirkwood, Archy


Gardiner, Barry
Kumar, Dr Ashok


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Gerrard, Neil
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gibson, Dr Ian
Laxton, Bob


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lepper, David


Godsiff, Roger
Leslie, Christopher


Goggins, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Linton, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Livingstone, Ken


Grocott, Bruce
Livsey, Richard


Gunnell, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Hain, Peter
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Lock, David


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McAvoy, Thomas


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McCabe, Steve


Hancock, Mike
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Hanson, David



Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Macdonald, Calum


Harris, Dr Evan
McDonnell, John


Harvey, Nick
McFall, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Healey, John
McIsaac, Shona


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hepburn, Stephen
McNulty, Tony


Heppell, John
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hesford, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Hoey, Kate
Maxton, John


Hood, Jimmy
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hoon, Geoffrey
Meale, Alan


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Miller, Andrew


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moore, Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jenkins, Brian
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Olner, Bill


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
O'Neill, Martin


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Öpik, Lembit


Keeble, Ms Sally
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pearson, Ian


Keetch, Paul
Pendry, Tom


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pickthall, Colin


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L


Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James


Kidney, David
Pond, Chris






Pope, Greg
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pound, Stephen
Stott, Roger


Powell, Sir Raymond
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Primarolo, Dawn
Stunell, Andrew


Prosser, Gwyn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce



Quinn, Lawrie
Temple—Morris, Peter


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rammell, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tipping, Paddy


Rendel, David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Truswell, Paul


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Roy, Frank
Tyler, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Sanders, Adrian
Watts, David


Savidge, Malcolm
Webb, Steve


Sawford, Phil
Welsh, Andrew


Sedgemore, Brian
White, Brian


Shaw, Jonathan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Wicks, Malcolm


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Short, Rt Hon Clare



Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Woolas, Phil


Snape, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Soley, Clive
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wyatt, Derek


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Graham Allen.


Stewart, David (Inverness E)



Stinchcombe, Paul





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bercow, John


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Body, Sir Richard


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boswell, Tim





Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Madel, Sir David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maples, John


Butterfill, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clappison, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Moss, Malcolm


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Nicholls, Patrick



Ottaway, Richard


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Prior, David


Evans, Nigel
Randall, John


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forsythe, Clifford
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fox, Dr Liam
Shepherd, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Garnier, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Gibb, Nick
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hammond, Philip
 Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hawkins, Nick
 Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Walter, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wells, Bowen


Key, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Leigh, Edward
Willetts, David


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lidington, David
Yeo, Tim


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Loughton, Tim



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes: Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Stephen Day.


MacGregor, Rt Hon John



MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

As amended in the Special Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

TREATMENT OF CERTAIN OVERSTAYERS

'(1) The Secretary of State must prescribe a period ("the regularisation period") during which overstayers may apply, in the prescribed manner, for leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

(2) The regularisation period—

(a) is to be not less than three months; and
(b) ends on the prescribed day.

(3) Section 7 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 come into force on the day after the prescribed day.

(4) The Secretary of State must publicise the effect of this section in the way appearing to him to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of those affected.

(5) "Overstayer" means a person who, having only limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, remains beyond the time limited by the leave.'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 28, 29, 91, 92, 96 and 139.

Mr. O'Brien: I said on Second Reading that we would consider any representations that we received, as well as what was said in the Special Standing Committee. The new clause is part of that process.
Too often in debates on immigration and asylum, people have taken fixed positions and made knee-jerk reactions to proposals for change. The left too often saw every change as xenophobic and racist, while the right tried to be tough and often seemed to believe that every asylum seeker was bogus and every immigrant was unwelcome. Neither reaction has characterised our discussions on the Bill.
In the Special Standing Committee, we discussed with refugee groups, interested parties, the Opposition and others how to develop a policy with broad-based support. The refugee groups, particularly the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre, Justice and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, responded positively to the opportunities to express their views. Lawyers also responded through the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. The Opposition came forward with some constructive proposals in Committee. I thank them for the tone in which they conducted the debate. We said that we would consider their proposals. We did not promise to accept every proposal or always to agree, but I hope that we are at the beginning of a process of sensible discussion on sensitive issues.
Setting aside the knee-jerk reaction of the appallingly racist Dover Express and the bilious mendacity of the odd leftist journalist, the debate on the Bill has been constructive in the national press and among pressure groups and many hon. Members. The Kosovan refugee

crisis has shown everyone that many refugees are genuine. That has helped us to focus on devising a balanced package aimed at creating a system that works.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I do not want to spoil the wonderful consensus that the Minister is trying to generate, but does he include in his comments about knee-jerk reactions the reactions of his Front-Bench colleagues when we introduced our much milder Asylum and Immigration Bill in 1996 and were accused of playing the race card and being racist? Will he repudiate that?

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady voted for a Bill that removed all support from in-country asylum seekers and those in the appeal system. That was not an acceptable or humane approach.

Miss Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I hope that the right hon. Lady will allow me to reply to her. In an attempt to encourage her not to pursue the abrasive approach for which she is renowned, I welcome her to her new Front-Bench position. I wish her a long period as Opposition home affairs spokesperson.

Miss Widdecombe: I was rather surprised by the hon. Gentleman's answer which confused the social security measure, for which I was not responsible, with the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which introduced measures with regard to safe third countries, safe countries of origin and illegal working, all of which, to an extent, have been picked up in this Bill. Will he repudiate the opposition that his party mounted to that measure?

Mr. O'Brien: We properly opposed the 1996 Bill, which the right hon. Lady put forward, because it was a bad Bill that created a shambles in the asylum and immigration system. The problems that we have to sort out were caused during her time at the Home Office, when she was responsible for immigration and asylum. Before she tries to preach to us, let her remember the shambles that we inherited from her and those with whom she worked at the Home Office in the previous Government.
Let us return to the more proper and sensible discussion that we were having until the right hon. Lady intervened. Perhaps she wants to use these difficult, complex and sensitive issues as a party political football. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who ably represented the Conservative party in Committee, did not seek to do that. She ought to learn the lessons of the failure of the 1996 Act and start engaging in sensible, adult discussion about the issues.
When we discussed what is now clause 7 in the Special Standing Committee, concern was expressed about the position of those current overstayers who have come to the attention of the authorities and are likely to be deported. At present, they have a suspensive right of appeal. They have a full right of appeal if they have been here for more than seven years, but only on a point of law if they have been here for a shorter period.
Under clause 7, such people would be removed, with a right of appeal against the legality of the removal decision, but the appeal could be exercised only


from abroad. It is important to note that asylum seekers will retain a right of suspensive appeal. The concern is about immigration offenders—overstayers—who may have been here for many years.
We will not condone overstaying—it is as much an evasion of our immigration controls as is illegal entry—but we have listened to representations and we are prepared to allow overstayers a limited and final opportunity to take advantage of the right to a suspensive appeal against deportation. New clause 1 achieves that. Importantly, it will allow them to remain in the United Kingdom only until their appeal is decided—a matter of months—and it will be for the adjudicator to decide whether they can remain beyond that date. Some may be able to remain; others will not and will need to be deported.

Mr. James Clappison: To which overstayers does that apply?

Mr. O'Brien: It applies to those who come to the attention of the immigration authorities during the period for which the regularisation procedure will apply. There will be a period during which they will be allowed to bring themselves to the attention of the immigration authorities; if they do that, we intend to allow them that right of appeal. We will consult the various organisations on the length of the period, but I anticipate that it will be about a year.
We will expect those who want to take advantage of the suspensive appeal to bring themselves to our notice, or they may be brought to our notice because they are detained, and in those circumstances an appeal will be allowed—but after that period is over, it is anticipated that such an appeal will no longer be available to those who are merely overstayers and have no other right of appeal.

Mr. Clappison: Is the Minister referring to all overstayers, or only those who have overstayed by more than seven years?

Mr. O'Brien: I am referring to those who currently have a right of appeal. Those who have been here more than seven years will have a full right of appeal, as at present. Those who have been here less than seven years have a very limited right of appeal, which is basically on a point of law, and that will continue to be the case. We are not extending the appeal rights beyond what we inherited from the Conservative Government. We will maintain the existing rights for a time and say, in effect, that if people want to exercise their right to a suspensive appeal in the specified period, let them come forward then, or that will be that.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend intend to set out any guidance on how the appeals should be conducted, or will existing case law apply? Will there be any new criteria?

Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps it will help hon. Members if I set out in some detail how we shall do that, and in doing so I shall deal with the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: This is a tricky subject. Several people will have a copy of the Bill

as it was first debated on Second Reading. Hon. Members have the Bill as amended in Committee. Some people outside will have the old notes on clauses and some clause numbers have changed. If possible, could the Minister refer to the present clause numbers and, if his officials can provide the information, the previous clause numbers? In that way, those watching our debates would be able to understand what we are talking about.

Mr. O'Brien: With great respect, the hon. Gentleman is seeking to add a level of complication—doubtless for the good reason of informing the public—to the proceedings, which might end up confusing more people. I shall try to be as straightforward as I can in my explanation of how the procedure will work, but I do not think much will be achieved by trying to refer to two different clause numbers each time I discuss a clause.
New clause 1 will allow people to remain in the United Kingdom until their appeal is decided, as I have said. Overstayers who apply for their status to be regularised will not be considered under any special criteria. In each case, their particular circumstances will be taken into account under the criteria set out in the immigration rules when deciding whether or not deportation is appropriate.
We shall ensure that the scheme is well publicised. The period for applying will be at least three months—we are considering the time limit—and clause 7 will not come into force until it is over. I believe that that was clause 6 in the old Bill. The details of how to apply will be set out in regulations.
We appreciate that the scheme does not go as far as some would like—some people asked us to retain the right of appeal indefinitely—but we are not prepared to allow current overstayers to retain access to lengthy deportation procedures in perpetuity. That would be both undesirable and impractical.
Amendment No. 28 is contingent on the regularisation arrangements provided for in the new clause. The former protection from removal provided by the original subsection (2) is no longer necessary. The effect of clause 3, which was introduced in Committee, and of paragraph 17 of schedule 4 is that, where someone makes an in-time application for further leave, the leave is treated as continuing while the application is being considered and while any appeal is pending under either clause 47 or clause 55(2). The person concerned is no longer an overstayer. Consequently, he is no longer liable to removal as such until the leave application is decided.
However, anyone who applies for leave to remain under the arrangements envisaged by new clause 1 is already an overstayer. If his application has not been resolved by the time clause 7 comes into force, he would be liable to removal under the new administrative removal procedures. Amendment No. 28 makes it clear that the new removal procedure will not apply to someone in that situation. If the application is granted, the person concerned will be granted leave to remain. If it is refused, they will have the same right of appeal during that period against any decision to make a deportation order as they do at present.
Amendment No. 29 deletes subsection (5) of clause 7. That power was originally included in case it was required. However, I can envisage no circumstances in which it might be necessary and, having regard to the concerns that were expressed by the Opposition—by


the hon. Member for Hertsmere about the number of powers in the Bill to make subordinate legislation—we have decided to forgo that one.
Clause 149 gives details of how the various orders and regulations are to be managed. Amendment No. 91 adds a new subsection (3A) to that clause, specifying that certain regulations are to be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Those are regulations concerning the regularisation period for the current overstayers and regulations extending the clause 60 one-stop procedure. We listened to the representations made in Committee by several hon. Members about the way in which we should do that, and we accept that the affirmative procedure is appropriate for those regulations, in line with the orders specified in subsection (3) of clause 149.
10.15 pm
Amendment No. 92 is consequential on amendment No. 91. It simply adds a reference in the regulations that are to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure to the list of exceptions in subsection (4), which otherwise requires all secondary legislation to go through the negative procedure.
Amendment No. 96 relates to new clause 1 and amendment No. 139. The new clause gives the Secretary of State power to make a regulation specifying when the regularisation period for overstayers ends. Subsection (3) of the new clause states that clause 7—under which overstayers are to be removed without deportation—and paragraph 6 of schedule 13 come into force on the following day. Amendment No. 96 refers back to new clause 1 in the commencement clause, listing it as a special case. For example, under clause 153(3), most parts of the Bill will come into force on the day that the Secretary of State appoints, but clause 7 will come into effect the day after the specified final day of the regularisation period.
Amendment No. 139 is a transitional arrangement. It retains the appropriate deportation appeal provisions of the Immigration Acts of 1971 and 1988 for overstayers who have made a valid but unsuccessful application under the regularisation scheme and who are to be deported under the old provisions, rather than removed under the new ones.

Mr. Richard Allan: Will the Minister clarify a point arising from when clause 7 comes into force? That clause applies also to those who have observed the conditions attached to their leave to remain, as well as to those who are simply overstayers. Will those in the former category retain their appeal rights during the regularisation period?

Mr. O'Brien: Our intention is that clause 7 will come into force all at once after the regularisation period has ended. We listened to the representations of various hon. Members in Standing Committee, who felt that we had to examine the issue very carefully, and the aim is to bring in the clause at a date later than originally planned. We cannot go as far as some hon. Members wanted, but we believe that this is a sensible way forward.

Mr. Clappison: It would be less than gracious not to respond to the Minister's opening remarks. I am grateful

that he has recognised that our opposition to the Bill has always been constructive and well meaning. I am just a little surprised, given what the Minister has said, that the Government have decided to guillotine debate and to keep the discussion of subsequent provisions as short as possible.
The Minister claimed to have listened to outside groups and to the evidence presented to the Special Standing Committee. However, had he tried to take on board all the criticisms of the Bill in that Committee, we would be here for a very long time. Perhaps that is why the Minister's colleagues want to guillotine debate.
New clause 1 follows on from matters that we have debated already with regard to overstayers' rights of appeal, but new clauses 2, 3 and 5 contain very controversial proposals that have not been foreshadowed in debate in any way. They were not part of the Government's original proposals for the Bill, were tabled at a very late stage and then were made subject to the guillotine procedure. That is unsatisfactory.
New clause 1 appears to be an addition to what the Government have proposed already by way of curtailment of overstayers' rights of appeal. In Committee, we did not oppose the proposals for change in those rights of appeal, nor the proposed change of regime for overstayers from deportation to removal. That curtails the rights of appeal, especially for people who have overstayed by more than seven years.
We take a serious view of those who overstay. People who exceed their permission to remain are flouting the law and obtaining benefits not available to those who follow the rules and who lawfully leave when they are supposed to do so. Overstaying is a serious matter, but if people have been here for a certain period, a balance must be struck in deciding what to take into account before they are expelled or deported. We must consider the need to remove them from the country against the need to take into account compassionate circumstances that may have arisen because of their presence in the UK for such a long time.
The previous Government set that balance at seven years. When someone had overstayed by more than that, compassionate circumstances could be considered as a ground of appeal. The present Government have changed the balance. Once the regularisation period has elapsed, there will be no right of appeal on compassionate grounds for overstayers who have been here for more than seven years. They will be unable to prosecute any right of appeal in the UK, which makes a very great difference. In taking that view, the Government have gone further than the previous Government. We did not oppose that change in Committee, but the Government have since bolted on a regularisation procedure as a means of meeting concerns expressed by outside organisations that gave evidence.

Ms Diane Abbott: It is true that the hon. Gentleman and his party did not oppose that change in Committee, but some of the Minister's Back-Bench colleagues did oppose it. Many people who overstay are settled members of the communities in which they live. They may have children at school, and the proposals will cause great misery and unhappiness.

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady's comments fairly reflect what was said in Committee. We went into


this matter—which, as the Minister said, is extremely sensitive—in some detail. It would not preserve the harmony that unexpectedly broke out at the beginning of the Minister's speech if I were gently to remind him of what the Labour party said about these matters when in opposition.
We have a number of questions about the regularisation period. The Minister has given a brief account of how it will work, and we have before us the bald statements in new clause 1. We wish to clarify matters further. Can the Minister confirm that the criteria to be taken into account in evaluating the cases of people who have overstayed are the same as those currently used in respect of the rights of appeal under the present system, which deals with them by way of deportation? For people who have been here for fewer than seven years, will the new regime mean that their rights to appeal will be judged against the points of law and other matters currently taken into account in their cases? For those who have been here longer than seven years, will compassionate circumstances be taken into account?
We want to know that there has been no relaxation in the current framework of law. It would be a new matter entirely if the Government intended, by way of regularisation, to relax the law in any way. We should also like to know how long the regularisation period will last. Will he tell us a little more about subsection (4), which deals with publicity on the effects of the clause?
We are not opposing what is being done. It may concern those who originally expressed the sort of fears that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned. She may know, as will other hon. Members, that many people who fall into the category of overstayers and who stay here for a long time simply put their heads down and do not respond to anything and the compassionate circumstances build up. The regularisation period will come to an end at some stage—the Minister will probably tell us when—and when it has ended those people will face administrative removal even if they have been here for more than seven years, with the rights of appeal that that entails. They will simply be removed from the country and they will have to prosecute any rights of appeal in the country to which they are removed. That is the regime that is to be put in place.
We look to the Minister for answers to my questions. It is interesting to set his contribution this evening against what he told us in Committee when these matters were being discussed. The hon. Gentleman tells us that he has been prepared to listen, but in Committee the Government assured us that the rationale behind and justification for the changes was a so-called streamlining of the system. Having listened to the Minister this evening, streamlining is not the appropriate description.
We do not oppose new clause 1, but we need a number of answers to our questions.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall make a brief contribution because I raised this issue in the evidence-taking sessions and later in the debate on the relevant clauses in the Standing Committee. It is an important matter.
As originally drafted, the Bill took away all appeal rights from overstayers, including those people who now when they have been here seven years or more get a full

substantive appeal—in which all sorts of factors can be taken into consideration—but who in future will be subject to administrative removal.
I very much welcome the fact that the Government have made some moves on this matter. In Committee, the Minister said—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was there at the time—that when administrative removal is being considered the same factors relating to deportation that are in the immigration rules at present would be taken into consideration. That is a move in the right direction, but I still have some doubts about whether we have the balance absolutely right.

Mr. Clappison: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there were not many occasions on which I was absent from the Committee. I remember the matter to which he adverts, but the factors to which he is referring will be taken into account by officials in the Home Office. My point related to rights of appeal before the courts.

Mr. Gerrard: I understand that absolutely. At the moment, the immigration rules list matters that will be taken into account by an adjudicator in deciding a deportation order. In Committee, we were told that the same factors would be taken into account in an administrative removal.
However, there is a significant difference between an administrative removal and an appeal. I am always worried when appeal rights are removed. I recall the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred. By the way, the right hon. Lady was wrong when she said that the benefit cuts were nothing to do with that Act. Although those cuts started off as a social security measure, the court threw out the social security regulations that the Government introduced, so they amended the 1996 Bill in its last stages. Those regulations were part of that Act and a part of her responsibility as a Home Office Minister.
The 1996 Act removed appeal rights on visit visas, which we are quite rightly putting back in this Bill. I know, as do many other hon. Members I am sure, the consequences of that removal. Then, people who previously would have had appeals were turning up in our advice surgeries week after week saying, "The visit visa appeal for my relative has been turned down. Please can you help?" We got drawn into making representations, which ended up on Minister's desks.
Generally, it is much better for decisions on appeal to be taken through a proper appeal process, rather than through administrative processes, into which hon. Members will inevitably be drawn.
10.30 pm
Another matter that concerns me is that, in future, other routes may be sought. People might make probably quite unjustified asylum claims because they saw that as the route to an appeal. Alternatively, they might use one of the other provisions in the Bill—the possibility of an appeal under the Human Rights Act 1998. That could open up the possibility of appeals on compassionate grounds—for example, on family grounds in respect of people who have been in the country for some time.
If there is to be a grace period, it needs to be of substantial length, because it will not be easy to persuade people to come forward. They are likely to come forward


only if they think there is something in it for them—if they think that they will benefit in some way. It is not easy to see precisely what the incentive might be for people to declare themselves to be overstayers. Many people might think about it, but they may be advised to keep their heads down, in the hope that they can spin out the period during which they are in this country, so that, in the longer term, they can build up a case on compassionate grounds and make family connections through which they can argue an appeal on human rights grounds. I welcome the fact that the Government have moved to acknowledge that we should—at the very least—safeguard people who are in the country at present. That is a positive move in the right direction.
However, I still have some doubts. It might have been better to consider a measure that did not include a grace period. For example, if we said that everyone who has been in the country for seven years on the day on which the Bill comes into force could keep their right of appeal, that might mean that appeals would be heard over a considerable period, although the number would inevitably gradually dwindle. However, if we do not take that course, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider a grace period of reasonable length in which people can be persuaded to come forward. If the period is too short, it might not serve the purpose that my hon. Friend wants it to serve.

Mr. Allan: In speaking to the new clause, I first welcome the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to her new position. She is one of the Members of the House who inspired me to become involved in politics and to stand at the last election. Like many other hon. Members, I was able to replace a Conservative Member, thus helping the right hon. Lady to achieve her position on the Opposition Front Bench. I am pleased that that happened.
However, after that election in 1997, I did not expect the new Labour Government to introduce Bills which, in many ways, take us back to the position adopted by the previous Conservative Government in 1996. I did not expect to feel the same anger about measures on immigration and asylum under a Labour Government, whose Members stood on the kind of platform that they did in opposition, that I had felt in 1996. I was interested to hear the Minister say that his approach was no longer one of knee-jerk reaction. In 1988, when the Labour Opposition opposed similar measures—to take away the appeal rights of people who stayed in this country for less than seven years—I took that to be principled opposition rather than simply a knee-jerk reaction from the left. I am somewhat disappointed to hear it described in those terms.
I am also interested to hear that the Government no longer feel that they need the support of dodgy left-wing columnists in subversive papers—such as The Observer perhaps. I do not know what the Minister was referring to, but perhaps that is the sort of extremist publication that he has in mind when he talks about dodgy subversive columnists. I am glad that he can retain the support of Labour Members without having to kowtow to those pressures from extremist positions.
We have had constructive debates on this issue and many others in Committee. I do not want to destroy the career of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison),

but I should say that together we have been able to mount an effective opposition by asking the right questions, even though we approach the matter from different angles.
We opposed the provisions of clause 7 in Committee and we continue to be concerned, even though we are pleased that the Minister has made some concessions. Our opposition has paid off in that he has now tabled a new clause that gives a marginal right of appeal to some people who would have had that right removed by clause 7. We are also pleased with the commitment that the Minister made in Committee to ensure that the immigration rules explicitly refer to the sort of criteria that may be used before a decision on removal is made. The Minister made it clear that, even without a deportation appeal, those compassionate circumstances would be taken into account.
However, new clause 1 does not cover that other category of people—those who have breached their conditions. Clearly, people should not breach their conditions, but we believe that there is a difference between illegal entrants and those who have entered the country legitimately and have the legal right to be here but who have breached their conditions for one reason or another. Such breaches are not to be applauded, but the reasons for the breach may be understandable. However, clause 7 leaves such people in exactly the same position as illegal entrants, in that they will be removed and unable to exercise any right of appeal until afterwards, and new clause 1 does not change that.
Our other questions arising from new clause 1 relate to operational details. Recently, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has not demonstrated that it is entirely capable of dealing with large rushes of applications, so we are concerned about how it will cope with the pressure resulting from a finite grace period. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made a good suggestion—that it would be better to have a system whereby individuals who have been here seven years or more at the time when the legislation is implemented retain a right of appeal. That group would be finite—there is no suggestion that such a system would apply to persons other than those who were already in this country when the provision was introduced—and it might help to avoid an otherwise inevitable rush of applications toward the end of the grace period.
I hope that the Minister will think about those points. There is to be further consideration of the Bill in another place, and I am sure that their Lordships will want to consider this issue and many others. The Minister should recognise that our suggestions, if incorporated in the Bill, would enable the retention of a limited right of appeal, but without many of the administrative problems that new clause 1 would cause. I shall not continue to oppose the retention of a limited right of appeal tonight and the proposals before us give no opportunity to revisit the whole principle of clause 7. However, we shall continue to return to the issue of appeal rights for people who have either breached their immigration conditions or who have overstayed.

Fiona Mactaggart: In a way, I hesitate to speak on the new clause, because it relates to an issue that I raised on Second Reading and have been pressing vigorously with the Minister and the Home Secretary ever since, to such an extent that the Home Secretary has taken to associating new clause 1 with my name, which I think


is deeply unfair. That is not because the new clause does not represent a concession—it does, and I welcome it—but because the nature of that concession is, to be frank, pretty paltry.
All the new clause does is defer the time at which the rights of people who have overstayed to appeal against a decision to deport them are curtailed. Before the election, the Labour party said, in terms, that it would sustain such rights; and when he was an Opposition spokesman, my right hon. Friend the current Prime Minister made the powerful statement that:
It is a novel, bizarre and misguided principle of the legal system that if the exercise of legal rights is causing administrative inconvenience, the solution is to remove the right."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
However, we are planning to do precisely that. I am glad that, at least for some people who currently have a right that can work, there is to be a deferral before they can no longer exercise that right. The problem is that I am not confident that the new clause will work in practice. That is part of the problem with the Bill as a whole. Those of us who have been involved in immigration and asylum matters over many years are concerned about not just the Bill's principles but its administration. The recent administrative concessions that Ministers have introduced constitute the best changes made during consideration of the legislation.
I am concerned that the new clause will lead to fishing expeditions. What rights will people retain during the registration period? They will retain the right of appeal, which, as has already been pointed out, is ineffectual in most cases. It is potentially effective only for those people who have overstayed for more than seven years, and appeal statistics reveal that only 5 per cent. of appeals in this category succeed. So that is a tiny possibility. If we are to publicise extensively the fact that people will retain their right of appeal, it might lead to a fishing expedition. People will register because they will know that they retain their right of appeal, and then discover that that right is ineffectual in their case. So they will have done the work of immigration officers, who are tasked with finding and prosecuting overstayers.
I believe the proposal has serious defects, but that does not seem serious if we accept that overstayers are trying actively and deliberately to contravene immigration law. However, many of them are not doing that. A constituent, Mr. Singh—I do not identify him particularly by revealing his surname as it is common to many of my constituents—entered the United Kingdom in 1989 as a child of 12 when his father applied for asylum. I believe—although I have not investigated the application fully—that his father's asylum claim was not particularly well founded. Nevertheless, my constituent—who was a child at time—was part of that claim, which was refused and went to appeal. In the meantime, my constituent reached adulthood and married. His marriage application was rejected because he was an overstayer. Mr. Singh has no appeal on his substantive case, and he will never have one. That is the kind of person who might be affected by this measure.
Some 8,000 readers of The Express have sent letters and petitions to that newspaper concerning a young man who entered the United Kingdom as a child, whose parents stopped paying his school fees and who has been an overstayer in this country for a long time. His case has caught the imagination of its readers. He is a typical example of that kind of overstayer.
In view of the position that Labour adopted when rights of appeal were curtailed under the last Government, there is a strong case for following precedent. Ten years ago, Commonwealth citizens who entered Britain before the Immigration Act 1971 came into effect and who had lived here for five years were declared immune from deportation. In 1974, after the 1971 Act came into force, the then Prime Minister said that those people who would have qualified would be treated as though they continued to qualify. If we look at the history books and the statistics, we can see that the outcome was quite predictable: a fixed number of people who had arrived before the commencement of the Act and who retained their qualification right submitted applications. As one would expect, the number of applicants fell away five years after the Act's commencement.
In this case, the numbers would fall seven years after commencement because of the way in which the Home Office correctly exercises the rule regarding people who have been in this country for 14 years, recognising the compassionate circumstances that may exist in such cases.
10.45 pm
The new clause takes a small step in the direction that I requested the Government to take on Second Reading, and it is accompanied by bigger steps in other parts of the Bill, but I ask the Minister to consider whether publicising, in the short-term, a right that is not significant achieves very much. The process will not be made faster; it will not be made firmer because the new clause affects, by definition, only people who are already here, and it will not be made fairer because that would be achieved only by the introduction of a proper right of appeal against Executive decisions.
I am glad that a small step has been taken, but I ask the Minister to consider whether a slightly larger change—made, perhaps, in the other place—might deliver the slogan about a firmer, faster and fairer immigration system on which we were elected.

Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief because there are many more matters to discuss and the proceedings are subject to an allocation of time motion.
There is a strong human dimension to the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) alluded to that when he said that the new clause must contain substantial provisions for overstayers or they will simply not come forward. Those of us who have the honour of representing one of the large number of inner-urban constituencies know many people who have been overstayers for many years. They lead a twilight existence. They live in perpetual fear of getting a parking ticket, of being stopped in the street, of witnessing a crime and being brought forward as a witness and of going to any authority because they know that they will be asked for their passport, their papers will be searched for, the Home Office will be contacted and their whole life will be torn apart.
If overstayers have a settled relationship and children, that fear is transmitted to their children, who are afraid to come forward and get involved. That simply is not right. If overstayers are looking for work, they are often subject to the worst possible exploitation. They will be exploited in sweatshops, burger bars, kebab houses and other places where people can get a job for a short time with no


questions asked. They will be paid disgraceful wages, and if they are abused by the employer, they cannot do anything about that. They cannot go to the Health and Safety Executive to complain about safety, and they cannot complain about not receiving the minimum wage or about anything else.
We have to recognise that we will damage the fabric of our society unless we try to make sure that everybody is legally entitled to work and able to lead a normal existence.
Although I recognise that the Minister has moved in the direction requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), it is essential that overstayers have the fullest possible rights of appeal. Case law indicates that in applications that rely, ultimately, on compassionate grounds, those grounds often reflect family relationships and structures. That is fine for people who happen to be in a relationship and to have a family, but the procedure often militates against single people who cannot claim such a network of support. That is why I have asked the Minister if any guidance will be given on that.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider what has been said and, perhaps, use the opportunity of the Bill's passage through the Lords further to amend the Bill not only to allow full rights of appeal, but to recognise the needs of single people who do not fit into the categories of compassionate circumstances that he is probably more accustomed to dealing with.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: This has been a useful debate. Some of it may seem very technical to people outside the House. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that my point about trying to make our debates comprehensible to people outside is serious. New clause 1 will not be the most important part of the Bill to them because, in time, it will die as those who qualify under it have their cases and, if necessary, their appeals processed.
Those who have a serious concern about the new clause, and who have tried to provide briefing material to the House—they will continue to provide such material to the other place in the weeks ahead—must be able to look through the marshalled new clauses and amendments, including the four-digit numbers on the pages of the amendment paper and clauses with numbers of up to three digits, and be able to work out what effect each will have. If they begin by reading the original Bill, that process will be difficult to follow. I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that the present clause number had changed. If that happens in future, it would be helpful if we could be told.
As the Minister acknowledged when he spoke about consultations, a range of groups has been useful to the Government and wishes the Government to go further. The Minister acknowledged in Committee that meetings with such groups could be useful. Some of those meetings made progress, as the outside groups wished. Some groups hope that further progress will be made not just today and tomorrow, as the Bill goes through its Report stage under a pretty strict timetable, but in another place. We can anticipate further changes when it comes back from the House of Lords in due course.
I have one particular point to make to the Minister. For most of the time in Committee, he did well. Occasionally, he may have been defending the indefensible, but he

usually kept his temper. He did not do that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) intervened at the beginning of the debate. The House will want to know whether that was preplanned, or whether it was his instant reaction to any kind of challenge to his remarks. I would like to think that it was preplanned and that it was the Minister's way of getting attention. Perhaps it was his bid to get into the Cabinet, but if it is repeated, we shall have to conclude that it is his reaction to being challenged.
We need to learn that in a democracy, challenge is normal. There may not have been much challenge to the Government on the matter in Committee, because it was only in the later stages that Labour Members began to participate more actively. They had originally listened rather quietly while arguments were advanced by the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on his assiduity in Committee.
The points made in Committee matter a great deal. I pay tribute to the Minister's advisers, who try to keep the existing system running and to find ways of getting the new system to work better.
Part of the job of the Opposition is not only to argue for the changes that we believe should be made, but to allow Ministers to answer the arguments of outside groups about aspects that they believe the Government have not got right or could deal with better. I hope that all the representations that we have received over the past four or five days have been copied to Ministers. Some of those relate to the present new clause, but most refer to issues that will probably be discussed tomorrow.
Some of the groups had to spend as much time with refugees, migrants and overstayers as do Home Office and immigration service officials. The partnership between the voluntary sector and the public sector is important. We have heard Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members speaking of their experience, and some hon. Members have spoken very well this evening.
This is not a time for long speeches. Progress needs to be made. The limited rights for overstayers do matter. There is a point that is tangentially relevant to that. During the hiccups—to put it gently—of the immigration service over the past few months, some people became overstayers while their application for variation of their leave to remain was supposed to have been processed.
I have advised a constituent that if such people are refused variation of their leave to remain, and they abide by the time limit by which they must leave the country, and if they later apply to come back on a visitors visa of some kind, the fact that they overstayed because their original application, which was made in time, could not be processed will not be held against them. I do not ask the Minister for an assurance on that tonight, but I want him to know that that is the advice that I have given. if it was not people's fault that their application was not processed in time, that should not be held against them if they want to return to this country under normal arrangements.

Ms Abbott: I begin by thanking the Minister for listening to what was said in Committee and outside and making some move to meet our concerns through the new clause. However, in his opening remarks the Minister characterised people's response to immigration legislation as either knee-jerk leftism or knee-jerk rightism. I suggest


that one of the things that characterises people's response to immigration legislation is their personal and constituency experience.
I have never had much taste for the tone in which Ministers talk about economic migrants because my parents were economic migrants, although they were within the law. I come from a part of the world where, for at least three or four generations, people have used economic migration as a pressure valve to relieve poverty and deprivation, so I cannot buy into the tone that is sometimes adopted to people who travel thousands of miles to better their lives and those of their families, although one does not condone people doing that outside the law.
My constituency experience shapes my response to the new clause. For some of my colleagues, refugees and asylum seekers are transient figures who come through their constituencies for a few months and then are gone, but I represent a part of London where nearly everybody comes from somewhere else, be it Ireland, eastern Europe, Jamaica, Nigeria, Somalia or Iraq.
Outwardly, many people in my part of the world are pillars of the community, but technically they are overstayers. Many are wilful overstayers, but many others did not set out to subvert the Minister's legal system. They came here as children, as partners of men who became abusive and abandoned them, as students or as visitors. One cannot do as much immigration case work as I do and have any illusions about the saintliness of most people who come forward at surgeries, but the thread that is common to many of them is that they did not start out seeking to subvert the system. I would pray that in aid for them.
There is another common thread, certainly in many of the cases that I deal with. When Ministers talk about overstayers and economic migrants, they conjure up a world of triads, gangsterism and wicked, venal people whom all right-thinking people should condemn; but first, my children's school friends, party members and people I see in the supermarket did not start out seeking to subvert the system; and secondly, many of them are settled members of the community. I have dealt with pupils who have been shocked to find that some little boy whom they have known since nursery is facing deportation because—guess what?—his parents are overstayers.
I want to speak about what the new clause and its limitations will mean in practice in the context of my life and my constituency experience. As colleagues have said, the three-month period is not enough. Most immigrants—even legal immigrants—tend to keep their heads down. I remember previous deadlines for regularising people's situations, and when one was set by the Government of the day, I had to say firmly to my own mother—who was here perfectly legally, but on her Jamaican passport, to which she was very attached—that she should go and get a British passport because that was the best thing for her to do. Most immigrants—for all sorts of reasons and even if they are here legally—do not want to draw themselves to the attention of the authorities. How much worse are things for those who are here illegally?
Subsection (4) of the new clause says:
The Secretary of State must publicise the effect of this section".
Presumably, that refers to the gentlemen and ladies in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, and we will come to its operations as we go through the Bill.

Some Members are slavish in congratulating the IND, and I am sure that many of its personnel are very nice people who go to church and are kind to animals, but the level of efficiency and the appalling state of the IND at present give me no confidence that it will publicise the effect of the subsection.
In effect, and as so often happens, these matters may come down to word of mouth. I do not think that three months is enough time for news of the subsection's effect to get round the Nigerian, Ghanaian, Iraqi and Somali communities in my constituency by word of mouth, or for their members to be persuaded to present themselves; and many people will miss out if the regularisation period is as brief as that suggested in the new clause.
I also think that there will be a problem towards the end of the three months when news of the subsection's effect finally gets round by word of mouth. There will be a big rush. How will the IND, which has boxes and boxes of unopened cases and misplaced files, deal with any sudden rush? We know what happened when the IND had to deal with previous rushes.
Some people have said that the new clause is a technical measure, but I know that, in the months and years to come, I will be dealing with some very sad cases as a consequence of it—cases involving people who, to all intents and purposes, are settled members of the community. Yes, technically they are outside the law, and yes, they are economic migrants; but have matters come to such a point that we, as a House, will condemn people who did not set out to subvert the law, and who are trying to play their part in the community?
It would be churlish not to welcome the extent to which the Government are meeting the need by tabling new clause 1, but I do not think that it will deal with circumstances in my constituency, and I hope that they will try to improve their proposals in another place.

11 pm

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We have had a short but useful debate, in which hon. Members have been able to express a welcome of sorts for our proposals. Some reactions have been warmer than others, but we have listened to what has been said, and have responded with the new clause and the amendments grouped with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said that overstayers could use other avenues of appeal. I think that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alluded to that as well. If overstayers wish to raise a family issue, or another issue that might properly be raised on the basis of the European convention on human rights, they are entitled to use that appeal mechanism on family and other compassionate grounds, provided that those grounds come within the provisions of the ECHR. However, we are introducing new powers for adjudicators to deal robustly with representatives who might seek to abuse such a system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned the Daily Express articles. I shall not comment on the case in question because it is before the courts; but overstayers are breaching immigration controls, and that is against the law. The Government were elected on the basis of their promise to establish firm immigration controls, and that sometimes means removing people who have been here for some time. People must face up to that unpalatable fact. Sometimes


people will the ends, but not the means. It is important for us to convey the message that overstaying is breaching the law, and we must ensure that we enforce the law.
Our aim is to create a system that works. We want a system that considers the particular circumstances of individuals, and offers appeal rights where they are appropriate; but we do not feel that people who have no right to remain here should be able to do so, and drag out the process of their removal.

Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend accept that some people are overstayers owing to circumstances beyond their control, either because they came here as children or because they came here as partners of men who either turned out to have other wives or subsequently abused them? I see a lot of that in some communities.

Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend has written to me a number of times citing cases that she has taken to Ministers on compassionate grounds. We listen carefully, and, if there is a strong case, Ministers have discretion to make decisions on such grounds. That right will remain with them. However, lengthy legal procedures—and deportation procedures take a long time—enable people with no right to be here to drag things out, and that is unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked me whether the criteria for the decisions would be the same as they are now. The answer is yes: there will be no relaxation of the criteria. As for how long the regularisation period will last, we envisage a period of about a year, but we shall consult various groups and listen to the debate as it progresses.
A number of hon. Members asked about publicity. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that we are committed to proper publicity. We aim to advertise in various ethnic minority media, including some of the international publications that are read by groups that may be overstaying in the country; but there are other ways of conveying our message through community groups.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow welcomed the changes, but sought more. I understand why he did so, but he was right to say that we had listened. I think that we have gone as far as we can, but we shall continue to listen, as far as we are able, during proceedings in another place.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) sought more detail on the process. That detail is more properly given during consideration of the regulations that will, in due course, evolve from the Bill, but essentially, the idea is that there will be a period during which will have to apply. It will be properly advertised. A decision will be made under the current criteria on whether people should be allowed to remain. If the decision goes against them, they will be entitled to an appeal.
The appeal will occur in much the way that it does now, except, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, that the backlog of appeals is now quite low, so the decision on appeal should be able to be made fairly quickly. We intend to ensure that we keep that appeal backlog low, so that such decisions can be made rapidly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough was concerned about overstayers with families. One of my problems as a Minister arises when hon. Members are concerned about the families of people who are subject to deportation proceedings. Someone who is deported is prevented from re-entering the country for three years. Their wives and children may become very disturbed about the deportation. The wife and children, or the other spouse and children, may not need to leave the country. They therefore have a choice. Do they go with someone who may be out of the country for three years, or do they remain? That is a difficult choice. It often deters people who have a deportation order against them from going voluntarily.
What will happen with the removal process is that there will not be the three-year period, so people with—

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Let me finish describing the position; then I will give way.
People who have been removed and have a right to re-enter the country because they are married to someone—they have a lawful right to be here—may be able to apply soon at the nearest embassy or high commission to re-enter lawfully and to ensure that their families are kept together. That is a more sensible approach. So my advice to Mr. Singh is that, if he is overstaying, he should obey the law. If he has good family reasons for wanting to remain in the UK—my hon. Friend mentioned that he was married—he should go back to his country and make an application properly, as other people do, at the high commission or wherever it is—presumably, it will be in New Delhi. If he has a legal right to do so, he will in due course be able to re-enter and to rejoin his family.
Of course, if Mr. Singh were removed under the deportation order procedure, he might be prevented from coming back for three years. However, if he has no legal right to be here, he will not be able to return.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the Minister accept that one reason why people are reluctant to do exactly that is the fact that, in some parts of the world, there are long delays before people are even interviewed on such applications? Perhaps if he could tell my constituent that he would not face a six-month wait before the interview on his application for return, my constituent might find it more possible to go to a country that he has not visited since he was 12 to make a fresh application.

Mr. O'Brien: The delays are not that long. The maximum delays in places such as Islamabad are about six months, which I accept is a long delay for the family, particularly when children are young. There are ways in which, in particular cases, it is possible to expedite those interviews, but in most other countries there are not such lengthy delays.
My hon. Friend will know that we have been making substantial efforts to reduce the backlog of interviews in various countries. We will continue to do so. She will be aware of the way in which the Foreign Office and Home Office will be integrating operations on issuing visas. I hope that the greater co-operation between the Home Office and Foreign Office will enable the sort of decisions that she wants made to be made much more quickly.


My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) described the life of some overstayers—working in sweatshops and living in fear. It must surely be far better to return properly, if they have a right to do so by reason of marriage, to regularise their stay and behave in a lawful way, as most immigrants do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to her parents as economic migrants. My parents were economic migrants, too, but they came here lawfully and obeyed the law. I trust that my hon. Friend's parents obeyed the law. That is what is important. Our job as lawmakers is to make good laws and then to ensure that they are enforced. Some people do not like enforcing laws because they may be unpalatable, but we have a responsibility as lawmakers to do so.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) referred to the consultation with various interest groups. They have been enormously helpful to us and have prevented us from making mistakes that we might otherwise have made. We are entirely responsible for the decisions and many of the interest groups will disagree with some of them. It is important to keep the door open to dialogue because it helps us not to make mistakes and it helps them to understand where we are coming from and why we are making decisions. I have found the process of opening up the Home Office valuable and I hope that the interest groups have, too. We will seek to continue to do that.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to have some misunderstanding about giving advice. If someone applies in time, under the variation of leave order, the leave is extended until 28 days after the date of the decision. So people in that position are not overstayers. They cannot overstay, whether consideration of their application takes two days, two weeks, two months or even two years. They are not in the precarious position that he feared, so he can reassure people on that point.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to the guillotine motion and complained that, if we wanted to listen, we would not be guillotining debate. We have had hours of debate in Committee, in the House, with interest groups and among Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman seemed almost to reduce the hours of consideration in Committee to an irrelevance, particularly the Special Standing Committee procedure in which we were engaged. This must be one of the most consulted-on Bills ever.
We offered two days of debate, but yesterday Conservative Members decided to muck about like a bunch of schoolboys, filibustering to disrupt the people's business. If Conservative Members have points worth making on this Bill that are so important, they should have curtailed the pranksters' antics yesterday. They are the architects of their own misfortune. Let us get on to talk about asylum and immigration and stop rehearsing the debates of earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can the Minister explain what is meant by the people's business that hon. Members are not supposed to discuss? Is that from central casting—or did the Minister make it up?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to advise the hon. Gentleman on such matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

REMOVAL OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS UNDER STANDING ARRANGEMENTS WITH MEMBER STATES

'.—(1) A member State is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2) as—

(a) a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and
(b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

(2) Nothing in section 6 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (protection of claimants from deportation etc.) prevents a person who has made a claim for asylum ("the claimant") from being removed from the United Kingdom to a member State if—

(a) the Secretary of State has certified that—

(ii) the member State has accepted that, under standing arrangements, it is the responsible State in relation to the claimant's claim for asylum; and
(ii) in his opinion, the claimant is not a national or citizen of the member State to which he is to be sent;

(b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 51; and
(c) the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no appeal is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), an appeal is not to be regarded as pending if the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under section 58(2)(a) in relation to the allegation on which it is founded.

(4) "Standing arrangements" means arrangements in force as between member States for determining which state is responsible for considering applications for asylum.'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 3—Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances.
Government amendments Nos. 56 and 58 to 60.

Mr. Straw: The new clause is the centrepiece of this group. For the most part, the other amendments in the group are consequential.
The objective of new clause 2 is to deal with the problem—which was identified in the White Paper that we published last July—of lengthy and unnecessary delays to the operation of the Dublin convention caused by disputes over the safety of transfers to other member states. We made it clear in the White Paper, and in Committee, that we perceive that to be a major problem, and that we might table an amendment to deal with it later in the Bill's passage. New clause 2 is the result of those considerations.
New clause 2 would replace section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in so far as it applies to asylum seekers transferred to other European Union states under what are referred to as "standing arrangements" for determining responsibility for asylum seekers. Those arrangements are currently provided for by the Dublin convention. As my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will notice, the clause itself does not specifically refer to the Dublin convention, as that convention may be superseded in the future. Moreover, every hon. Member will know, possibly by heart, that article 63 of the treaty of Amsterdam provides for the possibility, in the next five years, of a new instrument in the sphere.
The House will also note that new clause 2 provides that
A member state is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2)
as essentially a place where convention criteria are satisfied, and as
a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.
Before I continue explaining the changes, I should mention that the new clause would also make it a requirement that removal may not proceed if an appeal is outstanding, or if there is the possibility of such an appeal—or, of course, if there is a successful appeal—on the basis of the European convention on human rights. We are proposing certain limitations on the right of appeal on ECHR grounds in cases that I shall explain when I speak to amendment No. 60.
We are proposing those changes to the approach established in section 2 of the 1996 Act, first, because of the very real problems that we are experiencing in operation of the Dublin convention within the legislative framework of the 1996 Act, which seems not to have anticipated the convention. The second reason for our proposals is our conviction that, in the context of the Dublin convention, some of the current requirements are no longer necessary.
I had quite a few surprises when I became Home Secretary. I discovered, among other delights, that I had a dignified function in the election of new bishops to the Anglican Church.

Miss Widdecombe: Better you than me.

Mr. Straw: Yes. I have to administer an oath of homage, which new bishops have to make to Her Majesty, that was written by Queen Elizabeth I and has remained unchanged ever since. The oath refers, by implication, to those who have converted to Rome, and promises them a dire fate—as was befalling them, one way or the other, in the 16th century.
Various other delights awaited me. I had not properly realised that the Home Office was responsible for burials, or that we were somehow princes of the Channel Islands and of the Isle of Man.
I had also not comprehended—I do not remember it ever being mentioned in the House, in all our fascinating debates on immigration and asylum—that, in 1990, the previous Government had signed the Dublin convention. Hon. Members should mark that the previous Government

signed it at the height of their Europhobia, when Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister. Although I have yet to discover who was responsible for appending his or her name to the convention, the previous Government did sign up to it—which, happily for them, did not come into force until October 1997. I think that they had realised that, by then, they would be long since gone.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Mr. Allan: He signed it.

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) signed it, I shall give way.

Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary may not be aware of the fact, but the Committee Hansard for the 1996 Bill shows that the then Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), not only specifically mentioned the Dublin convention but welcomed it.

Mr. Straw: I look forward to consulting the record. I am happy to say that I was not a member of that Standing Committee. As the late Enoch Powell once said, the best way to keep a secret is to speak it in a Standing Committee.
The convention came into force in October 1997. Its purpose is not a problem and may have been given a general welcome, but its wording is a major problem that has caused immense difficulties in the European Union. It is already difficult to find sufficient evidence to show that a particular member state is responsible for individual asylum seekers. The added hurdle of disputes about the safety of member states makes matters even worse.
There are many hundreds of Dublin convention cases in a growing judicial review backlog. They are held up behind a series of test cases in which the courts are examining whether it is reasonable for me, as Home Secretary, to consider whether a member state of the European Union will abide by its obligations under the 1951 convention. A range of questions about the application of the asylum procedures in other member states and their interpretation of the 1951 convention can be at issue. In each case the representatives of the asylum seeker argue that an alleged deficiency in the other state's procedures makes it unreasonable for me to consider it a safe third country.
The scope for finding new points of detail in the laws and procedures of other member states on which to seek to delay removal is almost unlimited. An applicant's representative might point to a new report by a non-governmental organisation that alleges that an aspect of the procedure in another member state is defective. A case can be held in limbo for a year or more while it works through the courts. During that period it is impossible to progress the case of any applicant raising similar grounds.
As a result, almost all removals to a particular member state are delayed for at least the time that the case takes to get through the courts. We also find that no sooner has a case concluded in our favour than the applicant's representatives find another issue on which to challenge the decision and we are back to square one.
During our debates and in discussions outside the Chamber, but within the precincts of the House, many hon. Members have said that we need to process applications quickly and enforce the decisions. I agree, but in case after case the delay is caused not by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office, but by the fact that in this country, much more than in any other EU state that I can think of, particularly as the courts have developed the concept of judicial review, the opportunities for making one appeal and piling it on another have become disproportionate to the mischief of judicial maladministration, with which the courts are trying to deal through the process of judicial review.
If that pattern continues indefinitely it will be a constant obstacle to the effective operation of the Dublin convention. Around a third of all cases are presently delayed in that way.
The consequences are serious. There is an obvious risk of damage to our immigration control. The longer that an asylum seeker is in the UK, the harder it generally is to effect their removal. Over the coming years there could be considerable costs associated with that. In our debates on the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 it arose that under section 2 it would be possible for people to be returned to one so-called safe third country—the definition was not originally limited to EU states—and then leapfrog back to a fourth, fifth or sixth country. Later, on the Floor of the House, we were able to secure support for changes to section 2, which certainly improved its operation.
Prior to the 1996 Act, asylum seekers who were to be returned to member states had an in-country right of appeal, and it has been suggested that reintroducing such a right might solve the problem. As my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) made clear in Committee, that would not prevent applicants from finding issues on which to apply for judicial review after their appeal, which in my judgment would only add to the delay. The cases often involve very detailed comparisons between our asylum system and that obtaining in other states and there would always be scope for raising new issues after appeal.
I believe that the proposal is justified by the safeguards in the Dublin convention—which were obviously not in force when the 1996 Act was passed—and the need to make the convention work effectively, as well as the high standards of asylum procedures in other member states. Such provision is not without precedent in other member states.
Germany is well regarded for its application of human rights. Since the war it has been almost rule-bound in its consciousness of the need to observe human rights, and its basic law has a structure of constitutional courts. In Germany, however, other member states are considered safe third countries as a matter of law. It is also notable that other member states simply do not experience anything like the same amount of litigation over these issues. Their courts are prepared to accept that member states can be regarded as safe third countries.

Ms Abbott: This matter was discussed in our proceedings on the 1996 Act. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there were serious problems with people being

returned to France who were then passed directly to Zaire and Congo? There have been occasions when EU member states have not proved safe for genuine asylum seekers.

Mr. Straw: I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed. I have examined in some detail the arrangements that apply in France. The French authorities, and the police in particular, tend to treat people who are regarded not as asylum seekers but as wholly illegal immigrants—they are called "sans-papiers"—in a fairly peremptory way, but that does not apply—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should face the Chair, not the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).

Mr. Straw: Indeed. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The French do not treat asylum claims in so peremptory a manner. The French office for the consideration of asylum claims, OFPRA—I apologise to the House for the fact that I cannot recite off the top of my head what that acronym stands for—is a highly respected organisation, and if one reads the French press, as I do from time to time, one will quite often see stories about the length of time that it takes to deal with asylum cases. It applies itself strictly to the law.
We do not intend to return asylum seekers unless either their case has already been dealt with, in which case it falls to the other member state to take appropriate enforcement action, or there is an undertaking that it will be dealt with.

Mr. Allan: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that there has been a successful challenge against the Government on the ground that the French do not treat non-state parties as persecutors under the refugee convention, whereas we do? In France, persecution by Islamic militants would not be recognised as it is here.

Mr. Straw: Whenever there is an international convention—and this applies also to the European convention on human rights—there will always be some difference in the interpretation of that convention within the domestic law of the individual countries. That is called the margin of appreciation. The hon. Gentleman takes an interest in such matters and if he considers the interpretation of the European convention, he will notice significant differences between countries.
We are assisted in the interpretation of the European convention on human rights because we have what amounts to an international court that is able to determine what margin of appreciation should apply. There are many defects in the jurisprudence—but not in the original purpose—of the 1951 refugee convention, one of which is that there is no way that the margin of appreciation can be defined internationally. Different member states define it differently and it is open to argument which way is right.
There is a substantial argument that says that the interpretation applied by France, in respect of non-state parties, and by Italy, Germany and Switzerland—which has a good record on human rights and refugees—is much


closer to the original intentions of the framers of the 1951 convention than that of our courts in one or two cases.

Mr. Corbyn: A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked the Home Secretary specifically about the situation in France and its methods of removing people, especially to west African countries. In his discussions with the French Interior Minister, what undertakings were given to the British Government about the French formulation for adherence to the original convention?

Mr. Straw: I have talked to my opposite number, Jean-Pierre Chevèenement, on many occasions about the French asylum system. People parody the French judicial system, but France is subject to the constitution and the application of the law to a similar extent to this country. Indeed, in practice although perhaps not in legal theory, there is considerable convergence in the way that the French approach many issues. They have detailed judicial procedures for processing asylum applications. They are in place, they are followed and they are subject to the European convention on human rights. From time to time, France is in the dock before the European Court of Human Rights, just as is every other signatory state, and it adheres to the court's judgments. I hope that that provides reassurance.
Some people are confused—I was myself confused at one point—by the fact that the French police may deal peremptorily with people who are not asylum seekers. Such people are wholly illegal and are not seeking asylum. However, that is a separate issue from those who have applied for asylum. Some thousands of people—fewer than in this country—apply for asylum in France each year and their applications are considered on their merits.
The most important safeguards that were introduced by the Dublin convention are that applicants are now returned to another member state only if that state has accepted beforehand that it is responsible for considering the claim and if specific arrangements have been made for the transfer. That is an important development. Those safeguards were not present when the 1996 Act was passed. Indeed, in opposition we argued for those safeguards during the passage of the 1996 Act.
I have spoken of my belief that other member states are able to meet the full effect of the 1951 convention. It is also important to note that the 1951 convention is not the only international instrument that provides protection to asylum seekers. In addition to the convention, protection is provided by the European convention on human rights.
I said in my opening remarks that I would refer to amendment No. 60 when I was explaining new clause 2.
Government amendment No. 60 would amend clause 58, which relates to miscellaneous limitations on rights of appeal. It would place an important limitation on European convention on human rights appeals in cases under new clause 2, and also on cases under new clause 3 that involve a member state or a designated safe third country. It would provide that, where the Secretary of State was satisfied that a claim that removal was in breach

of the convention was itself manifestly unfounded, the right of appeal could not be exercised while the applicant was in the United Kingdom.
Such provision is necessary to prevent transfers in such cases being delayed by spurious allegations that the transfer would be in breach of the convention. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington that we understand why people want to come to this country and remain here. I make no judgment about their motives: we must work on the basis that, in almost every case, people want to come here to better themselves. However, that desire has to be balanced against the need, in the wider public interest, to secure effective immigration control and—very importantly—to secure fairness for those of our constituents and their families who are willing to avail themselves of rights under the law. Those rights often mean that applications for entry into the United Kingdom have to be considered outside the country, rather than within it.
Any misuse of the certification power under amendment No. 60 would be challengeable by judicial review. The power will be exercised only with great care.
I hope that I have explained the reasoning behind new clause 2 and the associated amendments to the satisfaction of the House.

Mr. Clappison: I welcome the Home Secretary to our proceedings, and the consistent calmness that he has brought with him. That is in contrast to the mood swings that the Under-Secretary seems to be experiencing. After being soothing for a time, he has displayed some abrasiveness that is not entirely called for.
I appreciate the gratitude that the Home Secretary expressed in a written answer last Wednesday to all the members of the Standing Committee and Special Standing Committee. However, I was surprised when he imposed a guillotine on debate a few days later, but I shall have to ponder that mystery. The Under-Secretary said that there has been so much debate already that there is no real need for more, but the Government are introducing entirely new provisions that are in addition to the sensitive matters that the Under-Secretary agreed to reconsider on Report. That is rather strange, and I hate to think of the wails of indignation that would have greeted a Conservative Government who had acted in that way.
In principle, I do not take issue with what the Home Secretary has said in connection with new clause 2 and the associated amendments. Later in the debate, I hope that he will be able to satisfy my natural curiosity about the background to the proposal. As he conceded in his opening remarks, it did not arise from the debate in Committee, but was under consideration last year and appeared in a consultation document last July. If the Government were considering it for so long, why has it taken until now for them to put it into the Bill?
This sensitive proposal takes away a person's right to seek judicial review. We may not consider the proposal to be controversial, but expert groups such as the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and the other august bodies that gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee would like to have expressed their views. The opportunity to do so has been taken away by the way in which the Government have introduced the provision.

Mr. Allan: It may assist the hon. Gentleman to know that the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has seen the


new clause at this late stage and has described it as draconian, unprincipled and wholly without justification. The association would have liked to elaborate further in the Special Standing Committee.

Mr. Clappison: Even when I do not agree with someone, I like to hear his or her point of view, particularly in the case of experts. The Government want to close down debate and ignore the experts while pretending to go through the motions of holding a Special Standing Committee.
We do not oppose the new clause. The Home Secretary has conceded that it builds on the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The Under-Secretary was intemperate—perhaps even reckless—when he spoke about that Act, much of which is reproduced in the Bill. On carriers liability, employment checks and rights of appeal, the Bill reproduces large parts of the 1996 Act. We can hardly oppose something that we enacted.
Remarks made on the 1996 Bill by Labour Members about the safe third country principle will make interesting reading alongside what they said in Special Standing Committee and their welcome to the Dublin Commissioner. My hon. Friends will recall how our provisions were criticised from pillar to post by Labour Members, some of whom have sat on the Front Bench.
We value consistency, accepting that asylum seekers can, in some circumstances, be removed to safe third countries. No legal impediment should get in the way, allowing cases to be dragged out before the courts. Section 3 of the 1996 Act removed the in-country right of appeal for that reason. The Bill goes further. Since that right was removed, some asylum seekers have successfully sought judicial review.
The Government's actions are justified. The safe third country principle should be applied without protracted legal proceedings, notwithstanding what Labour Members said in 1996. We are, however, curious to know why the Government have introduced the provision so late, bypassing all debate and expert evidence in the Special Standing Committee.

Mr. Gerrard: I find it difficult to deal with new clauses that were tabled just a few days ago. They are technical and it would have been useful to have seen them earlier. In particular, it would have been helpful if I had been able to consult outside organisations about their effect.
Safe third country appeals were introduced by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. People threatened with removal to another country on the ground that that country should determine their asylum application were given a right of appeal by that Act. In 1996, the Conservative Government decided that they had got it wrong and took that appeal right away. The original intention was to remove appeal rights entirely. I have looked back at what was said on Report in 1996. Then, we said:
Originally, the Government believed that persons should return to those countries to make their appeal",
and we were glad that the then Government recognised
that that was impractical and would have guaranteed no fairness or protection for the individuals involved.

We also said:
If a political asylum procedure is to be fair and perceived as fair, it is very difficult to cover all eventualities, even in the European Union."—[Official Report, 21 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 447.]
I have concerns and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether my interpretation of the clauses is accurate. They seem to say that if we are dealing with someone who is to be removed to a country that is a signatory to the Dublin convention, they will prevent that person from having access to judicial review. In the case of removal to a country that is not a signatory to the Dublin convention, they would stop the person having appeal rights before he or she is removed.
Some of our arguments three years ago, about the difficulties of exercising the appeal rights after one has been removed, still apply. I have not been able to find out how many appeals there have been since 1996—I looked through asylum statistics in Home Office publications this afternoon—involving people who were removed from the country and who, in theory, had the right of appeal from abroad. I suspect that the numbers are relatively small.
The problem that that creates for me in trying to understand the reasoning behind the necessity for the changes is that I have always understood that decisions on asylum cases should be made on the basis of what is happening or has happened to the individual concerned. That was our fundamental objection to the white list that was introduced in the 1996 Act—we are now getting rid of that. The fundamental objection to that list is that it made assumptions about a country as a whole, rather than asking what was the position of the individual in relation to that country. A similar line is being followed in this Bill as regards the Dublin convention.
In the next few years, there are likely to be changes; if some of the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty are taken forward, there may be some significant changes, with agreements throughout the European Union on minimum standards. However, we are not there yet.
The other question, about which I am not at all clear, is what will happen in the next few years if the European Union expands. The clauses mention member states. What happens if countries that are not signatories to the Dublin convention join the EU? For one reason or another, we may well have granted asylum to people who have come from some of the states that may join in the next few years. There may be some question marks about the human rights standards in those countries.
Therefore, I am not clear how the provision will operate. I understand the problem with judicial review in the past few years, as Ministers do not want hundreds of cases queuing up behind one or two judicial review cases. I am not a lawyer and I may be getting this completely wrong, but I have always worried about judicial review being substituted for an appeal. That is what happened in 1996, when the appeal rights on safe third countries were taken away. Judicial review became almost a substitute.
In general, many asylum cases are refused. People go to appeal and a small number get permission to go to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Very few get leave to go to judicial review, although many of them may try. That suggests that a comprehensive process of decision making followed by an appeal under the law is much more difficult to take to judicial review. Perhaps that is at the root of what has gone wrong during the past three years. The removal of appeal rights brought in under the Asylum


and Immigration Act 1996 has left a vacuum into which lawyers have happily rushed. As we know, they are quite glad to go for judicial review and to spin matters out and keep the process going.
I find this matter difficult and I am not sure whether I have exactly understood the amendments—obviously, they are highly technical. As the Bill progresses through another place, I hope that we shall have the opportunity to reflect on them. There are worries at the back of my mind about whether we are getting the matter right, because some people might be sent back to another EU country, but will later find that their asylum claim has not been determined there and that they are to be moved on to somewhere else. Alternatively, the claim might be determined in a way that would strike us as unreasonable.

Mr. Allan: This measure, with the previous new clause, sums up the Government's approach in amending the Bill, in that the previous new clause made some minor concessions, but this one introduces a new element with a potentially significant and serious impact on asylum seekers. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) over why the measure was introduced at such a late date. The sittings of the Special Standing Committee at which evidence was taken worked well; I hope that becomes the norm rather than the exception. However, that can work well only if substantive issues are introduced at an early stage. This is a substantive issue.
The matter seems to represent the Government's contribution to the arms race that seems to be taking place between the Government and the courts over judicial review. In later parts of the Bill, the Secretary of State denies himself the power to consider preferences as to where asylum seekers want to live, in order not to be taken to judicial review over whether he exercised that discretion properly. Perhaps Ministers will increasingly become automatons, who merely make standard decisions in order to avoid judicial review as that arms race continues. The Government—and perhaps the previous Government—have adopted a fairly combative approach to the courts in the way in which judicial review is exercised.
In this context, it is important to consider what judicial review does when it is exercised in cases under the Dublin convention and those in which safe countries are involved. The Secretary of State said that there would be serious consequences if the cases of a queue of people were undergoing judicial review. The consequences for an individual who is returned to a third country and is not treated properly are incredibly serious. That is literally a matter of life and death.
The kind of cases that have been considered are, for example, those of Kosovan asylum seekers that occurred before the beginning of the conflict. The British Government have now, quite properly, decided to apply 100 per cent. recognition to cases of asylum claims from Kosovans. However, before the conflict started, an individual took a case about being returned to Germany to the Court of Appeal and won, because it was clear that there was a significant chance that the person would be returned to Kosovo from Germany. There were domestic German reasons for that, although I understand that Germany does well in taking a large number of refugees.

However, the consequences of a return from Germany to Kosovo could have been serious. We all saw what happened to people in Kosovo before and during the conflict.
There is also the Algerian example. The Home Secretary referred to the fact that we apply provisions differently, but arguments about the wrong kind of persecution are deeply disturbing. We seem to be saying that we are quite content to send people back to the wrong kind of persecution; we are content that they should be persecuted by paramilitaries in Colombia or by Islamic militants in Algeria. As long as the state is not carrying out the persecution, we are not prepared to apply the law.
The Secretary of State says that there is a problem with the Dublin convention. I accept that; and I accept what he says about the problems over the different definitions of the 1951 convention. However, I do not want us to take the lowest common denominator, whereby we all head for a minimal definition—especially in the European states, which are among the wealthiest in the world and are more able to offer refuge to individuals who are fleeing persecution. I do not want this country to play a part in driving down standards, by saying, when reinterpreting the 1951 convention, that it is acceptable to use the margin of error and to allow people to face the wrong kind of persecution.
I hope that the Government will tell us why they have introduced the provision at this late stage, and how they intend to drag up standards, rather than drive them down. If the Government are determined to adopt the approach of having 100 per cent. confidence in safe third countries and of not wanting the courts to intervene and consider the issues of differential recognition rates at all, there is a duty incumbent on them to ensure that our European partners have standards that match our own. There is a strong Somali community in Sheffield and Somalia offers a good illustration of my argument. I understand that, because Somalia is deemed to be a civil war state rather than a case of an established Government persecuting individuals, the conflict there would not be regarded in Germany as sufficient grounds for refugee status.
I was pleased when, during the British presidency of the European Union, the Government announced that a common European approach to immigration and refugee issues would be a key matter. However, all has been quiet since then and we have dealt only with domestic legislation. I doubt that the Home Secretary will be successful in reassuring us, so we shall revisit the issue in detail in another place, where we have legal minds who will apply themselves to it. However, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to offer us some hope that the Government are facing up to the challenge that they set themselves during the British presidency to reach a common European approach and to make the Dublin convention work.
I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will state that, in that effort, the Government's intention is to meet the highest possible standards, and not to go down the route of the lowest common denominator. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) said, some of our future EU partners will be countries in eastern Europe whose records are not entirely laudable on these matters. To go


for the lowest common denominator would be a dangerous path and would make the new clause deeply disturbing to the Liberal Democrats.

Ms Abbott: I join colleagues from the Special Standing Committee in expressing regret that these important and highly technical new clauses were not tabled in good time, so that the Committee could take expert evidence on them and debate them properly. Despite their having the support of some Opposition Members, there is no doubt that the new clauses will have to be considered more fully in the other place.
The amendments deal with issues on which, during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, Labour Members spoke at great length. Concerns still remain in respect of differential standards and differential interpretations of asylum issues within EU member states. It is not a pleasant thought that we as a Government are reduced to playing pass the parcel with asylum seekers. It is difficult to comment on these technical new clauses, having had only a few days in which to study them, but one cannot lose sight of the suspicion that the convenience of Home Office officials is being elevated above the rights of asylum seekers. My hon. Friends have raised serious questions about the new clauses and I hope that Ministers will be able to answer them—if not in the minutes remaining, then when we resume the debate tomorrow.

Mr. Straw: In the closing minutes of the debate this evening, I hope to deal with some of the questions raised. My hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) all asked why the Government were not able to table the amendments and the new clause at an earlier stage in the Bill's passage. I wish that we had been able to do so. They were not an afterthought—the issues they deal with were flagged up in the White Paper published in July, and, if they had wanted to do so, it was open to the non-governmental organisations that gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee to anticipate that we might make a change—

It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to Order [this day].

Debate to be resumed this day.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scottish Parliament (Assistance for Registered Political Parties) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

WHO Environment and Health Conference

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

12 midnight

Mr. Tony Colman: I thank Madam Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly as an Adjournment debate is in progress.

Mr. Colman: I thank Madam Speaker for allowing this debate on the World Health Organisation third ministerial conference on environment and health, which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will open at 10 am in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. As I said during business questions last Thursday, I urge the Government to timetable a full debate in the House before the summer recess on the outcomes of the conference, given the important policy areas to be covered by the conference in the next three days, which include the United Kingdom environment and health action plan.
In this short Adjournment debate, I will cover what I believe to be the main areas of concern, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response—if not immediately—when she enters the Chamber, and subsequently in writing. This is the third conference in the WHO European region environment and health process, which has been running for 12 years. The process brings together representatives of 870 million people from 51 countries, including all the countries of the European Union, central and eastern European countries, the newly independent states and the central Asian republics.
As hon. Members will be aware, there are huge differences in the levels of health between countries. Since the decline of the Soviet Union, both public health and the state of the environment have diminished across Europe. However, it is also important to recognise—as did Acheson in his report into health inequalities in the United Kingdom—that great inequalities can exist in the health of different groups within the same nation. I hope that our Government will act on the basis of that report, independent of the WHO environment and health process.
The first conference in Frankfurt in 1989 issued a set of "principles for public policy" to guide Governments' actions on environment and health. The second conference held in Helsinki in 1994 called on Governments to produce national environment and health action plans—some of which have been ground-breaking in their encouragement of joined-up thinking between different ministries and Departments in countries across Europe. The third conference, starting in the morning, hosted by the United Kingdom Government, focuses on action. All involved sincerely hope that implementation will begin, and that outlook is reflected in the conference theme: "Action in Partnership". I shall take this opportunity to consider some of the outcomes of the ministerial conference.
First, I note that the main outcome is to be a legal protocol on water and health, which is the protocol to the 1992 Helsinki convention on the protection and use of trans-boundary water courses and international lakes.


The aim is to prevent, control and reduce the incidence of water-related diseases through collaboration on water management and the protection of health and the environment. I am sure that that laudable proposal, which has been developed by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and the WHO regional office for Europe, has cross-party support in the House.
The protocol addresses measures to achieve adequate supplies of wholesome drinking water, adequate sanitation and the effective protection of water resources, and safeguards against water-related disease arising from the use of water for recreational purposes. I am sure that all those who swim in the sea—including me—support that latter aim. I hope and trust that the Minister will send a message to her European colleagues to sign, ratify and implement the protocol.
The European region as a whole faces significant problems. According to the World Health Organisation, one in seven people in the WHO European region do not have access to safe water. Surely that must be considered a violation of one of the most basic human rights. Furthermore, at the dawn of the third millennium, diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever and hepatitis A—which we thought had long since disappeared from Europe—are reappearing. In Latvia, for example, several hundred cases of hepatitis A and bacterial dysentery are attributed to contaminated drinking water each year.
Given that the protocol has been agreed and is to be signed on Friday, what will be done to ensure that its worthy objectives are implemented? How are we to guarantee that the protocol is translated into meaningful action on the ground? Will the Government consider hosting a funders meeting, bringing together the World bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and other funding sources, as well as representatives of citizens and non-governmental organisations, in a partnership to examine how we move from words to action?
Partnership is the recurring theme in the conference proposals. I particularly welcome the commitment to public participation, access to information and access to justice in environment and health matters and the reiterated commitment to the Athens convention of 1998. What are the Government's plans to support further work in that field? I have long been a supporter of the local Agenda 21 process, with its emphasis on economic development, environmental protection and social equity and the involvement of all local stakeholders. Of course, many local authorities have ensured that links between health and the environment are part of their local Agenda 21 plans.
The WHO healthy cities project has also made a significant contribution to improving public health and the environment at the level where it counts most—the local level. The UK is to have the national environment and health action plan, which also proceeds on the Agenda 21 stakeholder approach. When will that be launched? What key indicators do the Government intend to use in that important policy document?
I note that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will tomorrow chair an important session of the conference, on early human health effects of climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion in Europe.

I hope that he will be able to support the proposals on contraction and convergence being made by Globe, the cross-party MPs' group on the environment, and will urge on all countries present the urgent need to sign and ratify the Kyoto proposals as an absolute minimum domestic action.
Yesterday's Chatham house conference on implementing the Kyoto protocol demonstrates the need for urgent action at COP-5 in Bonn this autumn. I commend to the House the suggestion of the honourable Simon Upton of New Zealand, who has led in this field, for the European Union to negotiate a deal on Russian hot air in return for finance to deal with environmental degradation in Russia.
The World Health Organisation's contribution to monitoring the impact of climate change on human health is to be applauded and, I hope, developed. However, I hope also that the focus of all our actions will be on preventing climate change as far as possible, rather than on adapting to those changes once we know that they are happening. I am glad to say that Ministers of all countries in the European regions reaffirmed their commitment to the precautionary principle in paragraph 44 of the draft ministerial declaration. I warmly welcome that endorsement of the principle, and hope that it leads to action to reduce risks to health where there is uncertainty. Furthermore, I also commend to the House the proposal for an international centre for emissions trading based in London as a way economically to drive down emissions.
I ask that every health authority, trust and primary care group should be requested, as part of an NHS-Kyoto CO2, reduction target, to bring forward its plans for sustainability. The conference is a great opportunity for the NHS to demonstrate what it has already done towards achieving the UK reduction target of 20 per cent.
I note the adoption of the charter for transport, environment and health. It is good that the WHO has at last placed firmly on the agenda transport and its impact on health. That will be particularly welcome to asthma sufferers throughout the world. The charter also takes a sensible approach to other aspects of transport, ranging from particulates to social isolation caused by lack of access to transport and the destruction of communities by traffic and noise.
About 120,000 people are killed in traffic accidents each year, and one in three of those are under the age of 25. There is also a wealth of evidence that the most disadvantaged suffer most. Those from the lowest social class are up to five times more likely to be the victims of traffic accidents and are far more likely to live in areas of higher traffic pollution levels, more traffic noise and busier, less sociable streets. Those World Health Organisation figures are surely unacceptable to all hon. Members.
The problems caused by traffic are only one part of the equation. There is an emerging link between lung cancer and exposure to traffic pollutants. It is estimated that 80,000 deaths among adults of over 35 years of age in urban areas of Europe are related to long-term exposure to transport air pollutants used in the ambient concentration of particulates as an indicator of exposure.
I look forward to pressure from the UK Government to move the charter from declaration status to legally binding convention status as soon as possible. Domestically, I hope that Ministers will shortly be able to fulfil their promise to announce a national target for traffic reduction, and that they will introduce policies to achieve that target.
Hon. Members will no doubt join me in welcoming the WHO's focus on child health at the conference. It is of great importance that the special vulnerability of children is recognised when safe exposure levels are set for toxic substances. The strong stance of the recently launched WHO initiative on tobacco is welcome, but the impact of tobacco advertising on child health needs to be addressed. The proposal in the draft declaration for annual monitoring and reporting on the state of child health in paragraph 50(F) is also worthy of note. It is to be hoped that Governments will include a focus on reproductive health as a key issue in protecting child health.
What is missing from the conference agenda this week? It is disappointing that there is to be no discussion about healthy food. I led a UK parliamentary delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union food summit conference last December at the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome. I was struck by the importance of the Codex Alimentarius jointly run for the past 50 years by the WHO and the FAO as a benchmark of the acceptability of novel foods.
Do the Government agree that that is important, and will they be represented at ministerial level at the Codex Alimentarius Commission to be held in Rome from 28 June to 3 July, when the new role of the World Trade Organisation in genetically modified foods will be debated? It is a pity that the conference this week did not reassert the primacy of the FAO and WHO in this field, or at least debate the issue.
The excellent Healthy Planet Forum, a 2,000-strong parallel conference taking place at Westminster central hall, is filling the gap by hosting an alternative food summit this Thursday. Can the Minister say whether any UK Government Minister has been able to clear his or her diary to speak at the food conference?
I am also disappointed that the issue of toxic chemicals, which appeared on the draft agenda, has been omitted from the final agenda and draft declaration. That is a critical issue for the environment. The recent scandal involving dioxins in Belgian food has served to emphasise public concern. The World Wide Fund for Nature is holding an expert panel discussion on toxic chemicals today at the NGO Healthy Planet Forum, when I understand that WWF will be making known new research in this area. I hope that the Minister will then be able to respond to the new research.
The Healthy Planet Forum will bring together NGOs, local authorities and interested people from almost all the 51 countries, and many others from outside Europe, to discuss the range of links between human health and the environment. The forum has been organised with the financial support of the UK Government, whom I thank, and the European Union and socially responsible businesses. I look forward to a lively and stimulating interaction between the civil society event and the ministerial event.
I strongly welcome the conference and its linkage of environment and health. I note that in the final sentences of its draft declaration, it mentions presenting the London declaration to be agreed this week to all member states in 2002 through the WHO and the committee on environmental policy of the UNECE. I recommend that the proposals should be presented to Earth Summit III, Rio plus 10, to be held also in 2002, so that all the nations of the earth can consider and take forward the excellent work being done this week.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing such an important and well-timed debate. The points that he raised span my ministerial responsibilities and those of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. I will ensure that the many points that my hon. Friend raised which are of specific relevance to my right hon. Friend are drawn to his attention.
The important challenge for the conference is linking the domestic and local impact of health and environmental issues with the need for global action. One reason why we are so glad that the WHO is a partner in that challenge is that the organisation has global reach. It has 191 member states and four key functions: giving worldwide guidance on health; setting global standards for health; co-operating with Governments to strengthen national health programmes; and developing and transferring appropriate health technology, information and standards.
The WHO's European region draws its membership from across the continent—from Greenland to the eastern limits of Russia, covering 51 countries and 870 million people. It therefore has a clear strategic overview of how the environment of the whole continent interacts with its population and is extremely well placed to co-ordinate work—on air pollution, for example—at a level that is simply not available to individual member states. The United Kingdom has long been a supporter of that approach to tackling trans-boundary issues.
I want to refer specifically to health inequality because it is linked directly to the disproportionate harm that can be done to people in deprived communities by environmental conditions. For example, the Department of Health's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants published a report last year that looked at the relationship between air pollution and people's health—a link that is often described as causal in terms of ill-health.
The study concluded that air pollution hastened between 12,000 and 24,000 deaths in 1997—although, it was estimated, by only a matter of days in many cases—and brought on about the same number of hospitalisations. Most of those people were disadvantaged and vulnerable to begin with and their condition was clearly exacerbated by a polluted environment. That is an important issue on which we co-operate globally, because environmental pollution does not respect frontiers. We consider working with the WHO and member states across Europe to be the proper way to achieve progress.
Another example is water quality, which does not often affect us directly, but the central and eastern European countries suffer most acutely from lack of a decent water supply. Polluted and infected water is equally as hard to contain as poor air quality, and contaminated water brings contaminated food which may be exported across the continent. Again, we need to act internationally and together to safeguard everybody's environment and health.
The conference that begins in London tomorrow is the third such conference. The first was held in Frankfurt in 1989, and the product was the European charter that set a framework for future action and policy formulation in this area. The second was held in Helsinki in 1994, and members drew up a framework plan for improving environmental health.
The London conference is a high-profile event—the biggest political event on the environment and health ever held in Europe. Health, Environment and Transport Ministers and officials from the 51 member states of the WHO's European region will attend, together with delegates from other WHO regions, and the conference is a joint effort by the WHO and the European Union. That shared ownership, as it were, highlights the importance of the issues, and the need for an inter-country approach to tackling issues that know no national boundaries.
The conference will emphasise the importance of actions to improve health and the environment by promoting both national and international developments. Its theme is "action in partnership", and gearing that action towards mapping a strategic path towards an environment for sustainable health in the 21st century.
Conferences such as this are often criticised for excluding the people whom they affect, and for being packed with unresponsive bureaucrats inhabiting ivory towers. It is because I want us to overcome that that I so much welcome the parallel event involving nongovernmental organisations that I shall visit tomorrow. I shall address one of its sessions on Friday. We sought to involve non-governmental organisations in the drafting of the papers that we shall discuss, and have invited some of the keynote speakers. The neighbouring parallel conference, which will be attended by more than 1,000 people from across Europe, will reinforce the messages and the representative base of the 50 NGO delegates who will attend the ministerial conference.
Let me quickly go through the items on the agenda, and respond to some of the points made by my hon. Friend. Tomorrow the charter on transport, environment and health will be discussed. It will be signed by me, and by other United Kingdom Ministers: the Minister for the Environment and my noble Friend Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State. The charter will cover integration of the environmental aspects of health in transport policies—including health within environmental impact assessments—transport-related health impacts, and the impact on vulnerable groups and sensitive areas. It will also establish guideline values for the health implications of transport activities, promote cycling and walking, and establish policy measures and instruments for sustainable and health-promoting transport.

Ms Joan Walley: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that part of that commitment will be followed by a commitment to the road traffic reduction legislation that is needed, with specific targets?

Ms Jowell: As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, that is being considered by Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's concern about the importance of traffic reduction measures is drawn to their attention; but I think that, overall, the transport charter will be seen as being complementary to the Government's integrated transport policy.
On Thursday, the protocol on water and health will be considered—a protocol to the 1992 convention on the protection and use of trans-boundary water courses and international lakes, developed jointly by the WHO and the

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Ministers will sign it at the London conference, and it will be legally binding. This is the first occasion on which the WHO has been involved in the development of such a legally binding protocol. It will address action on adequate drinking water and sanitation, safe water for agriculture, aquaculture and recreation, and systems for monitoring and managing risks to health. The UK Government, across Departments, have been closely involved in the negotiation of the protocol.
On Friday, we expect the London declaration, a strategic document signed on behalf of the conference by UK Ministers and structured around three themes: action, partnership and the 21st century. It will draw together key recommendations for further action from the other conference documents. It will consider the WHO's role in working with member states on health and the environment, and the role of NGOs and other enterprises.
Although those are the major strategic issues to be considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has said, there are others, including the important issue of children's health and the environment, with the focus, which I particularly welcome, on the impact of environmental tobacco smoke. Progress on the implementation of national environmental health action plans will be considered. The updated report will be published shortly. I hope that he will recognise at that time that substantial progress has been achieved.
There will be an overview of local Agenda 21 projects to improve environmental health. Measures to achieve greater public participation in tackling those issues, ways of disseminating best practice in safe and healthy work places, and the effects of climate change on human health will be considered. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is important that issues in relation to sustainability and the national health service are also addressed. As a Green Minister in the Department of Health, I can assure him that we take the issues of sustainability extremely seriously.
The problem is that, at such an event, there is never time to do justice to all the issues that people want to raise and to discuss, but I hope that the range of agenda issues that will be addressed in the main conference and in the NGOs conference will stimulate debate, begin to provide some solutions and begin to establish a clear set of actions that will follow.

Mr. Colman: Would the Minister like to comment on the alternative healthy food summit, which is coming up on Thursday, and whether a Minister could be there on the platform alongside the many eminent people who are coining from throughout Europe to discuss that issue?

Ms Jowell: I understand that it is not possible for a Minister to attend the summit, but I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that I will ensure that I and the Minister with responsibility for food safety receive a report of those discussions and consider their implications for food policy in England.
By the end of the week, we will have signed a legally binding protocol on water and health, which will commit each Government to publish targets for achieving safe drinking water, adequate sanitation and proper protection of other aspects of water that impinge on people's health. In particular, each Government will have to draw up plans


on how they intend to attain those targets and to monitor their progress towards them. In effect, the existing high standards that we enjoy in the UK and the rest of the European Union will be rolled out throughout the continent. That is the intention.
We will also have signed a charter on transport and health that recognises the need for sustainable policies to reduce the harmful effects that transport can have on people's health and their environment. That involves air, soil, water pollution, accidents, noise and greenhouse gas emissions. We want to encourage a healthier, more physically active approach to transport.

We will work with our European partners to build on the lessons that we have learned from our integrated transport strategy.
All those represent significant gains for the people of Europe. We are determined that the big statements and big promises of an important inter-ministerial conference are translated into practical benefits for the local environment in this country and improvements in people's health.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.